Opinion ID: 839467
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: predatory conduct defined

Text: In determining whether to assess 15 points for predatory conduct, the sentencing judge must first determine whether there was preoffense conduct. [19] The use of prefix pre in the term preoffense indicates that, to be considered predatory, the conduct must have occurred before the commission of the offense. In addition, the conduct must have been directed at a victim before the offense was committed. [20] A lion that waits near a watering hole hoping that a herd of antelope will come to drink is not engaging in conduct directed at a victim. However, a lion that sees antelope, determines which is the weakest, and stalks it until the opportunity arises to attack it engages in conduct directed at a victim. Contrast that with an individual who intends to shoplift and watches and waits for the opportunity to commit the act when no one is looking. The individual has not directed any action at a victim. The Court of Appeals decision in People v. Kimble [21] is instructive on this point. There, the defendant and his accomplices were looking for a vehicle to steal so they could remove and sell the wheel rims. To that end, they drove for an hour searching for a vehicle with valuable wheel rims. [22] Once they spotted one, they followed the driver, watched as she entered her driveway at home, then shot her and stole her vehicle. [23] Once the defendant in Kimble targeted the vehicle's owner, his act of following her and waiting for the opportunity to strike was conduct directed at a victim. In addition, preoffense conduct must have been directed at a victim for the primary purpose of victimization. [24] Victimize is defined as to make a victim of. [25] Thus, the statute mandates that preoffense conduct not be considered predatory if its main purpose is other than making the potential victim an actual victim. Victim is defined as 1. a person who suffers from a destructive or injurious action or agency. . . . 2. a person who is deceived or cheated. . . . [26] Predatory conduct under the statute is behavior that precedes the offense, directed at a person for the primary purpose of causing that person to suffer from an injurious action or to be deceived. We find the Court of Appeals opinion in People v. Apgar [27] particularly helpful in illustrating this point. In Apgar, the defendant and his accomplices invited the victim to accompany them to a store. [28] They drove around for more than two hours while forcing the victim to smoke marijuana. [29] They then took her to an unfamiliar house, where the defendant sexually assaulted her. [30] Clearly, the preoffense conduct of driving the victim around while forcing her to smoke marijuana was undertaken to make the victim an easier target for the sexual assault. Thus, it was done for the primary purpose of victimization. To aid lower courts in determining whether 15 points are properly assessed under OV 10, we set forth the following analytical questions: (1) Did the offender engage in conduct before the commission of the offense? (2) Was this conduct directed at one or more specific victims who suffered from a readily apparent susceptibility to injury, physical restraint, persuasion, or temptation? (3) Was victimization the offender's primary purpose for engaging in the preoffense conduct? If the court can answer all these questions affirmatively, then it may properly assess 15 points for OV 10 because the offender engaged in predatory conduct under MCL 777.40. In this case, neither the trial court nor the Court of Appeals properly analyzed whether defendant engaged in preoffense conduct directed at a vulnerable victim for the primary purpose of victimization. [31]