Opinion ID: 839467
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: exploitation of a vulnerable victim is a prerequisite to the assessment of points under ov 10

Text: The proper interpretation and application of the legislative sentencing guidelines are questions of law, which this Court reviews de novo. [3] Our analysis begins with the language of MCL 777.40: (1) Offense variable 10 is exploitation of a vulnerable victim. Score offense variable 10 by determining which of the following apply and by assigning the number of points attributable to the one that has the highest number of points: (a) Predatory conduct was involved ......................... 15 points (b) The offender exploited a victim's physical disability, mental disability, youth or agedness, or a domestic relationship, or the offender abused his or her authority status ..................... 10 points (c) The offender exploited a victim by his or her difference in size or strength, or both, or exploited a victim who was intoxicated, under the influence of drugs, asleep, or unconscious ..................... 5 points (d) The offender did not exploit a victim's vulnerability ......................... 0 points (2) The mere existence of 1 or more factors described in subsection (1) does not automatically equate with victim vulnerability. (3) As used in this section: (a) Predatory conduct means preoffense conduct directed at a victim for the primary purpose of victimization. (b) Exploit means to manipulate a victim for selfish or unethical purposes. (c) Vulnerability means the readily apparent susceptibility of a victim to injury, physical restraint, persuasion, or temptation. (d) Abuse of authority status means a victim was exploited out of fear or deference to an authority figure, including, but not limited to, a parent, physician, or teacher. Reading this statute as a whole, [4] we conclude that the central subject is the assessment of points for the exploitation of vulnerable victims. The statute applies when exploitive conduct, including predatory conduct, is at issue. The statute does not use the word vulnerable in the subsections directing the assessment of points for particular circumstances. Nor does the subsection specifically directing the assessment of 15 points for predatory conduct refer to exploitation. However, the Legislature's focus is clearly stated by subsection 1, which provides that [o]ffense variable 10 is exploitation of a vulnerable victim. [5] The intent to assess points for the exploitation of vulnerable victims is also demonstrated by the fact that the statute assigns zero points when the offender did not exploit a victim's vulnerability. [6] Subsection 3(c) defines victim vulnerability, [7] and subsection 2 clarifies that the mere existence of 1 or more factors described in subsection (1) does not automatically equate with victim vulnerability. [8] These subsections would be meaningless if vulnerability of the victim were not necessary for the assessment of points under OV 10. Whenever possible, every word of a statute should be given meaning. And no word should be treated as surplusage or made nugatory. [9] Thus, we conclude that points should be assessed under OV 10 only when it is readily apparent that a victim was vulnerable, i.e., was susceptible to injury, physical restraint, persuasion, or temptation. [10] Factors to be considered [11] in deciding whether a victim was vulnerable include (1) the victim's physical disability, (2) the victim's mental disability, (3) the victim's youth or agedness, (4) the existence of a domestic relationship, (5) whether the offender abused his or her authority status, (6) whether the offender exploited a victim by his or her difference in size or strength or both, (7) whether the victim was intoxicated or under the influence of drugs, or (8) whether the victim was asleep or unconscious. [12] The mere existence of one of these factors does not automatically render the victim vulnerable. [13] The same statutory language that led us to conclude that the victim's vulnerability is a requirement under the statute also leads us to conclude that exploitation is required. Points are assessed under OV 10 for exploitation of a vulnerable victim. [14] If the Legislature had not intended that exploitation be shown for the assessment of points under OV 10, it would not have expressly stated that zero points are to be assessed when the offender did not exploit a victim's vulnerability. [15] The subsections of the statute directing the assessment of 5 and 10 points explicitly require the sentencing judge to determine if the offender exploited a victim. [16] The subsection directing the assessment of points for predatory conduct, however, does not explicitly require the sentencing judge to determine if the offender exploited a victim. [17] Rather, the sentencing judge must determine if there was preoffense conduct directed at a victim for the primary purpose of victimization. [18] Nonetheless, preoffense conduct directed at a victim for the primary purpose of victimization inherently involves some level of exploitation. Thus, we conclude that points may be assessed under OV 10 for exploitation of a vulnerable victim when the defendant has engaged in conduct that is considered predatory under the statute.