OV 19--Interference with the Administration of Justice (Sentencing Guidelines)

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.