Background
Mandy Marie Benn drove into the opposing lane while attempting to pass a delivery truck and struck five cyclists participating in a charity ride. Two cyclists died, two suffered severe injuries, and one sustained minor injuries. Tests detected several controlled substances in Benn’s system.
A jury convicted Benn of two counts each of second-degree murder, operating while intoxicated causing death, reckless driving causing death, operating while intoxicated causing serious impairment, and reckless driving causing serious impairment, along with three controlled-substance-possession counts. The trial court imposed prison terms of 35 to 60 years for each murder conviction and ordered those two sentences served consecutively. Benn challenged evidence of a 2017 impaired-driving incident and the consecutive sentences.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence that Benn had driven unsafely while impaired by controlled substances in 2017. The earlier incident was admitted for permissible noncharacter purposes—particularly knowledge and absence of mistake—and was relevant to whether Benn knew that consuming such substances impaired her ability to drive, supporting the malice element of second-degree murder. Its probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, particularly because no one was injured in the earlier incident and the jury received a limiting instruction.
The court therefore affirmed Benn’s convictions and rejected her derivative sufficiency and ineffective-assistance arguments. Although Michigan law authorized consecutive sentences for the vehicle-related second-degree murders, the trial court failed to give particularized reasons for imposing them. The appellate court remanded, while retaining jurisdiction, for the trial court either to explain its rationale for consecutive sentences or, in its discretion, resentence Benn to concurrent terms.
Key Takeaways
- A prior impaired-driving incident may be admitted under MRE 404(b) to establish knowledge, absence of mistake, and malice when it bears a striking similarity to the charged conduct.
- Counsel was not ineffective for declining to make a futile objection to admissible other-acts evidence.
- Statutory authority to impose consecutive sentences does not eliminate the requirement that the sentencing court provide offense- and defendant-specific reasons for departing from Michigan’s concurrent-sentencing norm.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how prior impaired-driving conduct can help establish the knowledge necessary for a second-degree murder conviction arising from a fatal vehicle collision without being treated merely as propensity evidence.
It also reinforces that consecutive sentencing is an exceptional measure in Michigan. Even when expressly authorized by statute, it requires a particularized explanation sufficient for meaningful appellate review.