In People v Hershey, __ Mich App
__ (#309183, 12/5/2013) the Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred by scoring 10 points for OV 19, holding
that the defendant did not interfere with the administration of justice by
failing to pay child support because although he failed to comply with the
child-support order, he did not "hamper, hinder or obstruct the act or
process of the circuit court administering judgment . . . ." It further
found that he did not interfere with the administration of justice by violating
the terms of his probation.
This plain and ordinary meaning of the
phrase “interfere with the administration of justice” is consistent with the
published case law addressing OV 19. Opposing so as to hamper, hinder, or
obstruct the act or process of administering judgment of individuals or causes
by judicial process has broad application, just as “interfered with or
attempted to interfere with the administration of justice” is “a broad phrase.”
People v Barbee, 470 Mich 283, 286 (2004). It “encompasses more than
just the actual judicial process” and can include “[c]onduct that occurs before
criminal charges are filed,” acts that constitute obstruction of justice, and
acts that do not “necessarily rise to the level of a chargeable offense.” Id.
at 286-288.
Decisions of both the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court
have found the following conduct to constitute an interference or attempted
interference with the administration of justice: threatening or intimidating a
victim or witness, telling a victim or witness not to disclose the defendant’s
conduct, fleeing from police contrary to an order to freeze, attempting to
deceive the police during an investigation, interfering with the efforts of
store personnel to prevent a thief from leaving the premises with unpaid store
property, and committing perjury in a court proceeding. See id. at 286; People
v Ratcliff, 299 Mich App 625, 633 (2013), vacated in part on other grounds,
People v Ratcliff, __Mich__ (Docket No. 146861, entered October 25,
2013); People v McDonald, 293 Mich App 292, 299 (2011); People v
Smith, 488 Mich 193, 196-197 (2010); People v Ericksen, 288 Mich App
192, 204 (2010); People v Steele, 283 Mich App 472, 492 (2009); People
v Underwood, 278 Mich App 334, 339 (2008); People v Passage, 277
Mich App 175, 179-181 (2007); People v Endres, 269 Mich App 414, 420-421
(2006). Each of these acts hampers, hinders, or obstructs the process of
administering judgment of individuals or causes by judicial process. For
instance, the acts of witness intimidation and deceiving police investigators
seek to prevent incriminating evidence from being used throughout the process
of administering judgment of individuals by judicial process, including during
both the pretrial and, potentially, trial stages.
