Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.40 (2026)

Exploitation of vulnerable victim.

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Act 175 of 1927

777.40 Exploitation of vulnerable victim.

Sec. 40.

(1) Offense variable 10 is exploitation of a vulnerable victim. Score offense variable 10 by determining which of the following apply and by assigning the number of points attributable to the one that has the highest number of points:

(a) Predatory conduct was involved	15 points
(b) The offender exploited a victim's physical disability, mental disability, youth or agedness, or a domestic relationship, or the offender abused his or her authority status	10 points
(c) The offender exploited a victim by his or her difference in size or strength, or both, or exploited a victim who was intoxicated, under the influence of drugs, asleep, or unconscious	5 points
(d) The offender did not exploit a victim's vulnerability	0 points

(2) The mere existence of 1 or more factors described in subsection (1) does not automatically equate with victim vulnerability.

(3) As used in this section:

(a) "Predatory conduct" means preoffense conduct directed at a victim, or a law enforcement officer posing as a potential victim, for the primary purpose of victimization.

(b) "Exploit" means to manipulate a victim for selfish or unethical purposes. Exploit also means to violate section 50b of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.50b, for the purpose of manipulating a victim for selfish or unethical purposes.

(c) "Vulnerability" means the readily apparent susceptibility of a victim to injury, physical restraint, persuasion, or temptation.

(d) "Abuse of authority status" means a victim was exploited out of fear or deference to an authority figure, including, but not limited to, a parent, physician, or teacher.

History: Add. 1998, Act 317, Eff. Dec. 15, 1998 ;-- Am. 2014, Act 350, Imd. Eff. Oct. 17, 2014 ;-- Am. 2018, Act 652, Eff. Mar. 28, 2019

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 473 cases (135 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case: People v. Huston, 802 N.W.2d 261 (Mich. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

People v. Huston, 802 N.W.2d 261 (Mich. 2011). · cites it 129× “Score offense variable 10 by determining which of the following apply and by assigning the number of points attributable to the one that has the highest number of points: (a) Predatory conduct was involved ..”

People v. Cannon, 749 N.W.2d 257 (Mich. 2008). · cites it 40× “[3] Our analysis begins with the language of MCL 777.40: (1) Offense variable 10 is exploitation of a vulnerable victim.”

People v. Smith, 754 N.W.2d 284 (Mich. 2008). · cites it 8× “MCL 777.40. MCL 769.34(3)(b) mandates: The court shall not base a departure on an offense characteristic or offender characteristic already taken into account in determining the appropriate sentence range unless the court finds from the facts contained in the court record,…”

People of Michigan v. Anthony Ray McFarlane Jr, 926 N.W.2d 339 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 3× “That evidence supported a score of 10 points under MCL 777.40. *537 As for OV 13, the trial court had to assign 25 points under that variable if it found that defendant's offense was part of a "pattern of felonious criminal activity involving 3 or more crimes against a person.”

People v. Lockridge, 870 N.W.2d 502 (Mich. 2015). · cites it 4× “7 MCL 777.40(1)(b). 3 With his prior record variable score of 35 points, the defendant’s resulting guidelines minimum sentence range was 43 to 86 months, 8 but the trial court exceeded the guidelines and imposed a minimum sentence of 8 years (96 months) and a maximum sentence of…”

People v. Gloster, 880 N.W.2d 776 (Mich. 2016). · cites it 8× “In this case, we consider whether a sentencing court may assess a defendant 15 points for “predatory conduct” under Offense Variable (OV) 10 (exploitation of a vulnerable victim), MCL 777.40, solely on the basis of the predatory conduct of a defendant’s co-offenders.”

People of Michigan v. Alexander Jeremy Steanhouse, 911 N.W.2d 253 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 6× “" MCL 777.40(1). Five points must be scored if "[t]he offender exploited a victim by his or her difference in size or strength, or both, or exploited a victim who was intoxicated, under the influence of drugs, asleep, or unconscious.”

People v. Wilkens, 705 N.W.2d 728 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 8× “Offense variable 10, MCL 777.40, was also properly scored at ten points for counts I and II.”

People v. Ackah-Essien, 874 N.W.2d 172 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 6× “MCL 777.40(1). Points are assessed under this OV when exploitive conduct was directed against a vulnerable victim and the vulnerability was readily apparent, in that the victim was susceptible to injury, physical restraint, persuasion, or temptation.”

People v. Bosca, 871 N.W.2d 307 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 4× “Defendant challenged the scoring of 10 points for OV 10, MCL 777.40, suggesting that the boys were “almost adults .”

People v. Waclawski, 780 N.W.2d 321 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 3× “ov 10 Defendant next argues regarding OV 10, MCL 777.40, that the record does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that there was predatory conduct within the meaning of OV 10 and thus the trial court erred when it scored defendant at 15 points for exploitation of…”

People v. Lockett, 295 Mich. App. 165 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 3× “) This Court cannot find any evidence to support the trial court’s decision to assess 10 points for OV 4. Lockett also argues that the trial court incorrectly assessed 15 points for OV 10.”

Show all 473 citing cases →

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.40(1) — 112 cases

People v. Huston, 802 N.W.2d 261 (Mich. 2011). “Score offense variable 10 by determining which of the following apply and by assigning the number of points attributable to the one that has the highest number of points: (a) Predatory conduct was involved ..”

People v. Cannon, 749 N.W.2d 257 (Mich. 2008). “[3] Our analysis begins with the language of MCL 777.40: (1) Offense variable 10 is exploitation of a vulnerable victim.”

People v. Smith, 754 N.W.2d 284 (Mich. 2008). “MCL 777.40. MCL 769.34(3)(b) mandates: The court shall not base a departure on an offense characteristic or offender characteristic already taken into account in determining the appropriate sentence range unless the court finds from the facts contained in the court record,…”

People of Michigan v. Alexander Jeremy Steanhouse, 911 N.W.2d 253 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “" MCL 777.40(1). Five points must be scored if "[t]he offender exploited a victim by his or her difference in size or strength, or both, or exploited a victim who was intoxicated, under the influence of drugs, asleep, or unconscious.”

People v. Ackah-Essien, 874 N.W.2d 172 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “MCL 777.40(1). Points are assessed under this OV when exploitive conduct was directed against a vulnerable victim and the vulnerability was readily apparent, in that the victim was susceptible to injury, physical restraint, persuasion, or temptation.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.40(1)(a) — 183 cases

People v. Cannon, 749 N.W.2d 257 (Mich. 2008). “[3] Our analysis begins with the language of MCL 777.40: (1) Offense variable 10 is exploitation of a vulnerable victim.”

People v. Gloster, 880 N.W.2d 776 (Mich. 2016). “In this case, we consider whether a sentencing court may assess a defendant 15 points for “predatory conduct” under Offense Variable (OV) 10 (exploitation of a vulnerable victim), MCL 777.40, solely on the basis of the predatory conduct of a defendant’s co-offenders.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.40(1)(b) — 164 cases

People of Michigan v. Anthony Ray McFarlane Jr, 926 N.W.2d 339 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “That evidence supported a score of 10 points under MCL 777.40. *537 As for OV 13, the trial court had to assign 25 points under that variable if it found that defendant's offense was part of a "pattern of felonious criminal activity involving 3 or more crimes against a person.”

People v. Lockridge, 870 N.W.2d 502 (Mich. 2015). “7 MCL 777.40(1)(b). 3 With his prior record variable score of 35 points, the defendant’s resulting guidelines minimum sentence range was 43 to 86 months, 8 but the trial court exceeded the guidelines and imposed a minimum sentence of 8 years (96 months) and a maximum sentence of…”

People v. Cannon, 749 N.W.2d 257 (Mich. 2008). “[3] Our analysis begins with the language of MCL 777.40: (1) Offense variable 10 is exploitation of a vulnerable victim.”

People v. Wilkens, 705 N.W.2d 728 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “Offense variable 10, MCL 777.40, was also properly scored at ten points for counts I and II.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.40(1)(c) — 38 cases

People v. Needham, 829 N.W.2d 329 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).

People of Michigan v. Clarence Jovan Davison (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).

People of Michigan v. Keith Randolph Lewis (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.40(1)(d) — 16 cases

People v. Cannon, 749 N.W.2d 257 (Mich. 2008). “[3] Our analysis begins with the language of MCL 777.40: (1) Offense variable 10 is exploitation of a vulnerable victim.”

People v. Huston, 794 N.W.2d 350 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).

People of Michigan v. Clarence Jovan Davison (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).

People of Michigan v. Jacob Daniel Weeks (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.40(2) — 54 cases

People v. Cannon, 749 N.W.2d 257 (Mich. 2008). “[3] Our analysis begins with the language of MCL 777.40: (1) Offense variable 10 is exploitation of a vulnerable victim.”

People v. Harmon, 640 N.W.2d 314 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002).

People of Michigan v. Anthony Morris Marshall (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.40(2)(a) — 3 cases

People of Michigan v. Anthony Darryl Colbert (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).

People of Michigan v. David Maurice Lyons (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.40(2)(b) — 6 cases

People v. Dillard, 845 N.W.2d 518 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).

People of Michigan v. Matthew Morris Baker (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).

People of Michigan v. Elizabeth Long (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).

People of Michigan v. Charles Bufford Burns Jr (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.40(2)(c) — 5 cases

People of Michigan v. Matthew Morris Baker (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).

People of Michigan v. Steven Smith (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).

People of Michigan v. Mark Shakkuri (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).

People of Michigan v. Leslie Cecilia Metcalfe (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).

People of Michigan v. Michael William Goff (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.40(2)(d) — 2 cases

People of Michigan v. Harold Vincent Williams (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).

People of Michigan v. Kurtis Wayne Dell (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.40(3) — 5 cases

People of Michigan v. Joel Irwing Wilson (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).

People of Michigan v. Cory Ann Ziegler (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).

People of Michigan v. Todd Allen Agar (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).

People of Michigan v. Andre Keith Parker (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.40(3)(a) — 151 cases

People v. Cannon, 749 N.W.2d 257 (Mich. 2008). “[3] Our analysis begins with the language of MCL 777.40: (1) Offense variable 10 is exploitation of a vulnerable victim.”

People v. Waclawski, 780 N.W.2d 321 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “ov 10 Defendant next argues regarding OV 10, MCL 777.40, that the record does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that there was predatory conduct within the meaning of OV 10 and thus the trial court erred when it scored defendant at 15 points for exploitation of…”

People v. Lockett, 295 Mich. App. 165 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “) This Court cannot find any evidence to support the trial court’s decision to assess 10 points for OV 4. Lockett also argues that the trial court incorrectly assessed 15 points for OV 10.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.40(3)(b) — 99 cases

People v. Wilkens, 705 N.W.2d 728 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “Offense variable 10, MCL 777.40, was also properly scored at ten points for counts I and II.”

People v. Bosca, 871 N.W.2d 307 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “Defendant challenged the scoring of 10 points for OV 10, MCL 777.40, suggesting that the boys were “almost adults .”

People v. Phelps, 791 N.W.2d 732 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.40(3)(c) — 102 cases

People v. Cannon, 749 N.W.2d 257 (Mich. 2008). “[3] Our analysis begins with the language of MCL 777.40: (1) Offense variable 10 is exploitation of a vulnerable victim.”

People v. Wilkens, 705 N.W.2d 728 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “Offense variable 10, MCL 777.40, was also properly scored at ten points for counts I and II.”

People v. Phelps, 791 N.W.2d 732 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.40(3)(d) — 14 cases

People v. Bosca, 871 N.W.2d 307 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “Defendant challenged the scoring of 10 points for OV 10, MCL 777.40, suggesting that the boys were “almost adults .”

People of Michigan v. Joshua Sterling Sweet (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).

People of Michigan v. Joel Hosea Harding (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).

People of Michigan v. Dantraz Javon Oliver-Mcclung (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).

People of Michigan v. Juan Vincent Buber (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.40(a) — 3 cases

People of Michigan v. Taija Denice Bush (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).

People of Michigan v. Alvin Zarchary Samuel (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.40(b) — 2 cases

People of Michigan v. Alvin Zarchary Samuel (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).

People of Michigan v. Timothy Joseph White (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.40(c) — 1 case

People of Michigan v. William Frank Sikorski Jr (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.40(l)(a) — 12 cases

People v. Steele, 769 N.W.2d 256 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).

People v. Cannon, 749 N.W.2d 257 (Mich. 2008). “[3] Our analysis begins with the language of MCL 777.40: (1) Offense variable 10 is exploitation of a vulnerable victim.”

People v. Johnson, 826 N.W.2d 170 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.40(l)(b) — 11 cases

People v. Cannon, 749 N.W.2d 257 (Mich. 2008). “[3] Our analysis begins with the language of MCL 777.40: (1) Offense variable 10 is exploitation of a vulnerable victim.”

People v. Brantley, 823 N.W.2d 290 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).

People v. Bosca, 871 N.W.2d 307 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “Defendant challenged the scoring of 10 points for OV 10, MCL 777.40, suggesting that the boys were “almost adults .”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.40(l)(d) — 2 cases

People v. Cannon, 749 N.W.2d 257 (Mich. 2008). “[3] Our analysis begins with the language of MCL 777.40: (1) Offense variable 10 is exploitation of a vulnerable victim.”

People v. Russell (On Remand), 760 N.W.2d 841 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.