Court Opinion

ID: 9583511
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:39:23.398573+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:03.344976
License: Public Domain

Weaver, J.
(concurring). I concur in the result only and write separately because I do not agree that "the prosecutor had the burden of introducing some evidence of value, either the testimony of a qualified expert, or the testimony of a person with knowledge . . . . ”
What the prosecutor needed to introduce was evidence of "total damages to all property to an apparent extent of $200.00 or more,” MCL 257.622; MSA 9.2322, of which the defendant driver had knowledge before the police did.
Here the investigating deputy testified that there was "quite a bit” of front-end damage to the truck and the defendant testified that there was water damage to the engine and that the insurance company considered it a total loss. I would hold that from the evidence presented the jurors could determine, on the bases of their common knowledge and general experience, that the damage was to an apparent extent of $200 or more.
However, it was undisputed that the police were at the accident scene before the truck was removed from the river and that damage was not apparent until it was removed. The jurors could not properly find that the defendant knew of the apparent $200 or more damage before the police did. Therefore, the jury erred in convicting defendant.
For these reasons, I agree with the result to reverse.