“Incapacitated” for purposes of MCL 333.7403(3)(a); “Incapacitated person” & “incapacity”

The court held that the trial court did not err by finding defendant was incapacitated for purposes of MCL 333.7403(3)(a), and thus, did not abuse its discretion by permitting him to withdraw his plea and dismiss the possession of meth charge. The sole question presented by this case was whether defendant was incapacitated for purposes of subsection 3(a). “There is no caselaw, published or otherwise, construing the term ‘incapacitated’ as employed in the Good-Samaritan law. Because the statute does not define the term, this Court may consult dictionary definitions.” The court held that the record evidence clearly indicated “defendant was rendered unfit for normal functioning and was impaired by an intoxicant.” Body camera video footage showed that during the incident underlying these charges, he “was conscious and minimally responsive, able to provide first responders with his middle name and his birth date, and knew that it took 10 dimes to make a dollar.” Also, he could follow simple commands. “He presented a finger so that his pulse and blood-oxygen could be determined. He also presented an arm so that his blood pressure could be measured.” Clearly, he was not totally incapacitated, i.e., unconscious. Nevertheless, there was “nothing in the plain language of subsection 3(a) that requires total incapacitation.” Moreover, there was ample record evidence to sustain a determination that he was “incapacitated within the plain meaning of the term and, hence, for purposes of subsection 3(a). Defendant’s mannerisms, facial expressions, and eyes were those of an individual under the influence of a mind-altering substance. His attention was unfocused. Defendant often stared out into space. His gaze wandered around the porch where he sat. He acted like he was seeing things unseen by the others on the porch. He talked to himself. At one point, he repeatedly stated ‘I found it’ for no apparent reason. He called 911 while two police officers were standing in front of him and speaking to him. Further, his mother reported that he had been sitting and staring all day–sometimes at the wall, sometimes at his phone.” Both defendant and his mother indicated that he had used “bad meth” or some other substance or substances. His mother, “the two responding police officers, and the two responding paramedics all believed that defendant needed to go to the hospital because of his level of intoxication.” One of the responding police officers could “be heard stating several times that defendant was stoned out of his mind and out of it.” Affirmed.