In People v Gratsch, the Court of Appeals held that the statute criminalizing possession of a weapon in jail was not unconstitutionally vague. The statute prohibits a prisoner from possessing a “weapon or other item” that might injure another person or assist the prisoner in escaping from jail. Because a person of ordinary intelligence could understand the meaning of the statute, it passes constitutional muster. The Court also rejected several other challenges to Defendant Gratsch’s conviction relating to the jury instructions, Gratsch’s motion for a new trial, and his sentencing variables.
On appeal, Gratsch also complained that the trial court did not instruct the jury that to be convicted Gratsch must have had an intent to injure another person with his weapon. But the Court of Appeals held that the inmate-weapon statute, MCL 801.262(2), had no such requirement. It requires only a general intent to possess the weapon. The Court similarly rejected Gratsch’s argument that the trial court should have granted him a new trial. Gratsch asserted that he should have received a new trial because the prosecutor did not (1) correct the false testimony of a witness-inmate, or (2) inform Gratsch of the inmate’s plea agreement. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of a new trial because neither alleged err affected the outcome of the proceedings, among other grounds. Lastly, Gratsch argued that the trial court erred in scoring OV 9 at 10 points because fewer than two victims were placed in danger. The Court of Appeals disagreed because the trial court heard testimony that Gratsch had discussed injuring at least two persons with his weapon.