Parrott loses appeal on evidence to go before jury in Manistee case

On Dec. 22, the Michigan Supreme Court denied former 34th District Court Judge David M. Parrott’s application for leave to appeal the Feb. 4 ruling of the Court of Appeals.
On Feb. 4, the Michigan Court of Appeals announced it had ruled against an appeal Parrott filed concerning evidence to be used in a 2018 misdemeanor drunk driving charge in Manistee County.
The 18-page Feb. 4 ruling turned down Parrott’s appeal of three district court orders that: (1) prohibited the defendant from using his preliminary breath test (PBT) at trial; (2) held that the area in which defendant’s vehicle was stuck was, as a matter of law, generally accessible to motor vehicles; and (3) denied defendant’s motion in limine to exclude evidence regarding his occupation and display of his “badge.”
Parrott appealed the orders to the Circuit Court, which denied his application for leave to appeal. The Appeals Court granted leave to appeal and scheduled oral arguments.
On June 3, 2020 the Michigan Court of Appeals heard the oral arguments in the operating while intoxicated case against then-Judge Parrott.
His attorney and a co-attorney were allowed to give their arguments in a session that lasted about 53 minutes.
Attorneys Liisa Speaker and Michael Nichols spoke on behalf of Judge Parrott, who was charged with driving while intoxicated on Dec. 25, 2018 in Manistee County, after he slid off the roadway at an intersection at about 6:28 p.m. and ended up stuck in an uncultivated field.
The attorneys told the court that Parrott had been able to drive in the field and hoped to get out himself. After working about 35 minutes, he called for a tow truck and the police got involved.
He was given a personal breath test at 7:26 p.m. which registered 0.109, which was leveled off at 0.10 according to police procedure. Michigan’s level is 0.08 to be considered intoxicated for driving. Police took him into custody and at 8:08 p.m. a blood draw by the Michigan State Police showed blood alcohol content of 0.152.
Speaker said time had passed from the time he ate his mashed potatoes and turkey meal, three minutes away from the accident.
She told the court the Manistee prosecutor has convinced the court to not allow an expert to mention the PBT test given at 7:26 p.m., and this being inadmissible denies Parrott a complete defense.
“The prosecutor has to bring up the PBT or it won’t be in the case,” Speaker said.
Nichols agreed this is a denial for Parrott to present a complete defense.
Nichols told of a report that shows how the alcohol level slowly rises in a body after a meal. The Appeals Court judge noted he was aware of the report.
Also, Parrott wanted a bench trial, but the prosecution wanted a jury trial and a jury trial was to be scheduled.
Gordon Miller of the Manistee County Prosecutor’s Office was present at the session before the Court of Appeals.
He said Parrott displayed his badge, which meant he had a culpable state of mind, Assistant Prosecutor Miller said.
Miller said when Parrott asked, “Can anything be done?” it was an attempt to influence the arresting officer.
It was noted Parrott identified himself as a judge to the tow truck driver but said nothing like that to the officer.
Miller said that the defense might say that Parrott was just joking with his question and just wanted to be treated with fairness.
Nichols asked if the “badge” Miller noted was different from “identification” and Miller said he didn’t know, but the police report refers to it as a badge.
“Some sort of ID?” Miller asked. “I could live with that.”
“He spent 35 minutes trying to get out of the field and he was not over the limit then,” Nichols said.
Miller said it was unclear to him whether Parrott was in the ditch or off the roadway.
Speaker gave citations of Supreme Court decisions on whether the field should be considered a roadway, in light of the charge of driving while intoxicated on a public road.
She questioned whether the field had “general accessibility” as required for a roadway and would an open field be generally accessible by a motor vehicle? She said the ditch was a steep embankment, deeper than most ditches, and the field was uncultivated and undeveloped. He was more than 33 and 38 feet from the two roads at the intersection, Speaker said.
The appeals judge noted one road ends in a field.
Speaker said her client had to call a tow truck and he had driven through trees and shrubs and a steep embankment.
Nichols pointed out the preliminary breath test that was low was taken at the time of the driving and the blood test at the police department or the hospital taken later was higher.
Miller said this was his first driving while intoxicated case and he would not be the one prosecuting the case in district court.
Parrott’s case has been put on hold in Manistee District Court until the appeals court decision was announced.
It was on hold again until the Michigan Supreme Court considered and denied his application for leave to appeal the Court of Appeals ruling.
The brief order on Dec. 22, 2021 read: “On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the Feb. 4, 2021 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.” It was signed by the Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court Larry S. Royster who certified this was a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
Attorney Nichols said last week that his team is meeting with Parrott to consider their options.
Meanwhile a pretrial has been set for March 23 at 85th District Court in Manistee County.