When Can a Victim’s Intoxication Matter in a Michigan DUI Causing Death Case?

Victim intoxication can become an important issue in a Michigan DUI causing death prosecution when alcohol or drug evidence bears on the victim’s conduct and the causation analysis. But the legal significance of that evidence is more complicated than simply asking whether the victim was intoxicated or even by learning how intoxicated they were.

Michigan law formally calls the offense OWI causing death, although DUI is the term more commonly used acronym. The difference between DUI and OWI in Michigan is primarily one of lexicon.

The governing question addressed in this article is causation. In this regard, Michigan law requires the prosecution to prove that the accused person’s operation of the vehicle was both a factual and proximate cause of the death. Evidence concerning the victim may matter when it bears on whether the victim’s own conduct became a superseding cause that broke the legal chain of causation.

This article originally discussed the 2020 Michigan Court of Appeals decision in People v Baase. Since then, the Michigan Supreme Court’s June 24, 2026 decision in People v Morgan has provided important new guidance.

When Is a Victim’s Intoxication Relevant in a Michigan DUI Causing Death Case?

The starting point is that intoxication by itself is not gross negligence. The fact that toxicology testing detects alcohol, THC, or another substance does not automatically establish that the victim caused the collision, contributed to it, or acted with gross negligence. A toxicology result without meaningful evidence about the victim’s conduct may have little or no relevance to proximate cause.

But the opposite categorical rule is also incorrect. Michigan law does not say that victim intoxication is irrelevant unless the victim has an extremely high BAC or is already independently shown to have been grossly negligent.

The correct analysis asks how the toxicology evidence relates to what the victim was actually doing and whether those facts, considered together, bear on gross negligence and proximate causation with the outcome focused on whether the chain of causation would be broken. If so, the alleged drunk driver is only that, a drunk driver, meaning their OWI charge cannot be enhanced to a more serious crime due to the death or serious injury.

Why Does Proximate Cause Matter?

Under Michigan law, causing death is not established merely because a defendant was operating a vehicle while intoxicated and a person died. The prosecution must prove causation. That includes factual causation and proximate causation. And without it, as stated above, there can be no enhancement.

Factual causation generally asks whether the death would have occurred but-for the defendant’s operation of the vehicle. Proximate causation asks whether the death was a direct and natural result of that operation or whether another event intervened and broke the legal causal chain.

The Michigan Supreme Court explained these principles in People v Schaefer, 473 Mich 418; 703 NW2d 774 (2005), and later developed them in People v Feezel, 486 Mich 184; 783 NW2d 67 (2010).

Our separate article provides a more detailed explanation of proximate cause in a Michigan DUI causing death case.

What Is the Difference Between Ordinary Negligence and Gross Negligence?

This distinction is critical because ordinary negligence by a victim generally does not break the chain of causation.

Ordinary negligence is considered reasonably foreseeable. A driver may misjudge distance, make an imperfect turn, fail to react as quickly as possible, or make some other ordinary driving error without relieving another driver of criminal responsibility.

Gross negligence is different. Gross negligence is conduct that shows a serious disregard for the safety of others: the person knew ordinary care was needed to prevent harm, could have used that care, but failed to do so when the danger would have been apparent to an ordinary person and likely to cause a disastrous result. See People v. Lardie, 452 Mich. 231, 265–66, 551 N.W.2d 656 (1996).

Gross negligence involves a reckless disregard for the safety of others in the face of circumstances involving a high degree of danger. Conduct rising to that level can be sufficiently unforeseeable to constitute a superseding cause.

The point is not simply to determine whether the victim shared some degree of fault. The question is whether the victim’s conduct was sufficiently extraordinary and dangerous to affect the prosecution’s ability to prove proximate cause beyond a reasonable doubt.

What Did People v Feezel Say About Victim Intoxication?

People v Feezel remains one of the central Michigan cases on victim intoxication and proximate cause.

In Feezel, an intoxicated driver struck and killed a pedestrian. The victim had a BAC of approximately 0.268. But the victim’s BAC was not important merely because it was high.

The surrounding conduct were important because the victim was walking in the middle of the roadway, with his back to traffic, at night, during a rainstorm, despite the availability of a sidewalk.

The Michigan Supreme Court concluded that evidence of the victim’s intoxication was highly probative of gross negligence because it could help explain his ability to perceive the risks created by his conduct and his capacity to react to the circumstances around him.

At the same time, Feezel expressly cautioned that a victim’s intoxication is not automatically relevant. Merely showing that the victim consumed alcohol or drugs does not establish a superseding cause.

Why Were the Victims’ Toxicology Results Excluded in Bergman and Baase?

Later decisions illustrated the other side of the rule.

In People v Bergman, 312 Mich App 471; 879 NW2d 278 (2015), the victim had a BAC of approximately 0.054 and THC in his system. The defendant crossed the centerline into the victim’s lane.

The Court of Appeals concluded that the toxicology evidence was not relevant to causation because there was no evidence that the victim was driving improperly or otherwise contributed to the collision. The toxicology result therefore lacked the necessary connection to conduct bearing on gross negligence.

The Court of Appeals reached a similar result in the unpublished 2020 decision People v Baase.

In Baase, the defendant was fleeing police and driving in a center turn lane at approximately 90 miles per hour when he struck the victim’s vehicle. THC was detected in the victim’s system, but the record did not establish that the victim was driving improperly or that her conduct contributed to the collision in a way that could amount to gross negligence.

Under those facts, the Court of Appeals held that the victim’s THC evidence was properly excluded.

Bergman and Baase therefore remain useful examples of a basic principle: toxicology without relevant and related conduct is not enough.

What Did People v Morgan Change?

The Michigan Supreme Court’s June 24, 2026 decision in People v Morgan, Docket No. 167492, significantly clarified how courts should evaluate victim-intoxication evidence when proximate cause is disputed.

Morgan was not an OWI causing death prosecution. The defendant was charged with moving violation causing death after his vehicle made a U-turn and collided with a motorcycle. But the same Michigan causation principles were central to the case, making the decision important in DUI causing death litigation as well.

In Morgan there was a motorcycle-car collision that resulted in the decedent’s death. Shortly before the collision, the decedent was stopped at a red light south of the collision site. When the light turned green, he allegedly accelerated quickly. According to one witness, it looked like the decedent’s motorcycle “took off like a bat,” accelerating “heavily” when the light changed.

While speed remained in dispute, Morgan’s proposed accident reconstructionist calculated that the decedent could have reached 75 mph. A post-mortem blood test approximately 75 minutes after the collision showed a BAC of 0.059. The defense proposed expert testimony estimating that the motorcyclist’s BAC at the time of the collision could have been approximately 0.071 to 0.081.

The trial court permitted evidence concerning the motorcyclist’s possible speeding but excluded the BAC evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed.

Does Morgan Mean Any Victim BAC Is Now Admissible?

No.

Morgan did not hold that any evidence showing a victim consumed alcohol is automatically admissible. It also did not hold that a BAC below 0.08 establishes impairment, gross negligence, or a superseding cause.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the basic principle from Feezel: intoxication standing alone may not be relevant at all.

What Morgan rejects is a rigid sequential analysis in which the defense must first prove independently grossly negligent conduct and only afterward is permitted to use intoxication evidence to explain that conduct.

Instead, the evidence must be evaluated together. The victim’s conduct helps determine whether the BAC is probative, and the BAC may in turn help the jury understand the victim’s conduct.

In Morgan, possible speeding and rapid acceleration were already relevant to the collision. Evidence concerning alcohol could assist the jury in evaluating that conduct, including the motorcyclist’s perception, reaction, and operation of the motorcycle.

How Do Feezel, Bergman, Baase, and Morgan Fit Together?

These cases are not necessarily contradictory. They may be read as a whole to illustrate a fact-specific continuum.

If a victim tests positive for alcohol or drugs but was otherwise properly operating a vehicle and there is no evidence connecting the substance use to the collision, specifically the negligent operation of the vehicle, the evidence may remain irrelevant.

If the victim’s conduct itself raises a legitimate issue concerning excessive speed, unusual acceleration, roadway position, perception, reaction, or another circumstance material to causation, then as part of the totality of the circumstances, toxicology evidence may help the jury determine whether that conduct rose to the level of gross negligence.

Why Morgan Changes the Way the Old Baase Article Should Be Read

The original version of this article used Baase to suggest that a victim’s intoxication would “probably not” be relevant in a Michigan DUI causing death case.

That formulation is now too broad.

Baase remains useful for what actually happened in that case. The victim’s THC result was excluded because the evidence did not establish conduct by the victim that contributed to the collision in a way that could support gross negligence.

But Morgan makes clear that Baase should not be converted into a general rule that intoxication evidence is usually irrelevant. The analysis depends on the interaction between toxicology and conduct in the particular case.

The better question after Morgan is therefore not:

“Was the victim intoxicated?”

It is:

“What was the victim doing, and does the toxicology evidence, along with all the other evidence, help the jury evaluate conduct that matters to factual and proximate causation?”

Can THC or Marijuana Evidence Be Relevant After Morgan?

Potentially, but the same fundamental principle applies.

The presence of THC does not, by itself, establish that a person was impaired at the time of the collision. Nor does a positive THC result automatically establish negligence or gross negligence.

The defense ordinarily must examine the toxicology evidence together with the available evidence concerning the victim’s actual conduct and the circumstances of the collision.

Depending on the case, that could include vehicle speed, lane position, braking, acceleration, perception and response, video evidence, witness observations, crash data, toxicology interpretation, and expert testimony.

Baase remains an example of when THC evidence lacked the necessary factual connection. Morgan reinforces that the ultimate analysis should focus on how the evidence works together rather than automatically isolating the toxicology result from the conduct it may help explain.

What Evidence Should Be Investigated When Victim Intoxication May Matter?

A meaningful causation investigation should ordinarily go well beyond obtaining the victim’s toxicology report.

Depending on the facts, potentially important evidence may include:

• the complete toxicology report and laboratory records;
• victims experience with the drug in question;
• victims prior unlawful use of drug in question;
• the timing of blood collection in relation to the collision;
• accident reconstruction evidence;
• event data recorder or crash data recorder information;
• vehicle speed and acceleration data;
• braking and steering inputs;
• roadway measurements and sight distance;
• traffic signal timing;
• surveillance, dash-camera, or body-camera recordings;
• witness descriptions of the victim’s operation;
• cell-phone or electronic evidence where legally obtainable and relevant; and
• expert analysis concerning perception and response time.

Where a blood sample was collected materially after the collision, the timing may also raise questions about what the person’s BAC was earlier. In an appropriate case, an expert may attempt retrograde extrapolation, although any estimate depends on the reliability of the underlying assumptions and available data.

Morgan itself involved proposed retrograde-extrapolation testimony because the decedent’s blood was collected approximately 75 minutes after the collision.

Who Decides Whether the Victim’s Conduct Affected Causation?

Morgan illustrates an important distinction between an evidentiary question for the judge and a factual question for the jury.

The judge first determines whether the proposed evidence is admissible. That includes deciding whether the evidence is relevant under MRE 401 and whether its probative value is substantially outweighed by the dangers identified in MRE 403.

At this threshold stage, the defense does not have to establish that the victim was actually grossly negligent. The defense need only present enough evidence to put gross negligence “in issue,” meaning that a reasonable juror could view the victim’s conduct as demonstrating a wanton disregard of the possible consequences.

If that threshold is met and the evidence is admissible, the ultimate causation dispute becomes a question of fact for the jury.

The jury may then consider the totality of the evidence, in determining whether the victim’s conduct amounted to ordinary negligence or gross negligence and whether it constituted a superseding cause.

Most importantly, the defense does not bear the ultimate burden of proving gross negligence. The prosecution must prove every element of the charged offense, including factual and proximate causation, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Why Early Investigation Matters

Victim-intoxication issues frequently depend on evidence that can disappear.

Vehicles can be repaired, destroyed, or released. Electronic crash data may become unavailable. Private surveillance recordings can be overwritten. Roadway conditions can change. Witness memories fade.

For that reason, identifying a potential causation issue early may determine whether the defense can later establish the factual foundation necessary to make toxicology evidence relevant.

This is particularly important in a serious Michigan DUI causing injury or death case, where accident reconstruction, toxicology, and causation may need to be investigated at the same time.