Now Accepting New Clients!

CRIMINAL LAW 14: The district court’s decision to bindover the Defendant was not an abuse of discretion.


On the evening of November 2, 2012, two men left work and were accosted by two unidentified men who came from behind an adjacent building who demanded money.  One of the men brandished a firearm.  When the victims attempted to drive way, the defendant hit the front passenger side of the vehicle near the vehicle’s hood and front light with his hand and demanded that the victim stop, but he ddn’t and the victims got away and the defendant ran away.

At the scene, police officers collected DNA from blood on the side of the victim’s car, which was later analyzed and then compared to a buccal swab of the defendant’s many years later.  The crime lab DNA comparison analysis report indicated that the DNA from the blood at the scene so closely matched the DNA from defendant’s buccal swab that a 1 in 1.57 trillion chance existed that the crime scene blood was not from defendant.  The prosecution charged defendant with two counts each of armed robbery and felony-firearm. After hearing the DNA evidence, the district court found probable cause to bind over defendant on the charges.

Defendant moved in the trial court to quash the information, arguing that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence at the preliminary examination to support a finding of probable cause that defendant had committed the alleged crimes.  In support of his motion, defendant argued that the DNA evidence alone failed to place him at the crime scene when the alleged crimes took place, and that the prosecution failed to establish sufficient facts to support the inference that defendant had been one of the two men involved in the incident.  The trial court agreed and dismissed the charges without prejudice.  The prosecution now appeals.


We review a district court’s bindover decision for an abuse of discretion.  This Court therefore essentially sits in the same position as the circuit court when determining whether the district court abused its discretion.  In simple terms, we review the district court’s original exercise of discretion.


At a preliminary examination, the prosecution must present evidence establishing that the defendant committed the charged offense, and the district court must find that probable cause exists to bind over a defendant for trial.  To satisfy this burden, the prosecution must present evidence of each and every element of the charged offense, or enough evidence from which an element may be inferred.  Identity is an essential element of every crime.  Accordingly, to warrant a bindover, the prosecution must produce evidence that a crime was committed and that probable cause exists to believe that the charged defendant committed it.

Probable cause is established if the evidence would persuade a careful and reasonable person to believe in the defendant’s guilt.   The evidence supporting a determination of probable cause “may be circumstantial, but must nevertheless demonstrate reasonable grounds to suspect the defendant’s personal guilt.  This standard requires evidence of each element of the crime charged or evidence from which the elements may be inferred.  In determining whether the prosecution has met this burden, we “review the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution . . . .” 

In this case, the record reflects that the district court provided an extensive summary of the evidence presented at the preliminary examination and explained its reasoning concerning why probable cause existed to bind over defendant.  That some of the evidence may not perfectly align remained for resolution by the triers of fact at trial.  Indeed, even if the district court determined that contradictory evidence raised questions concerning defendant’s guilt, the district court was obligated to bind over defendant.

Having reviewed the evidence presented at the preliminary examination in a light most favorable to the prosecution, the district court’s decision to bind over defendant did not fall outside of the range of principled outcomes, and therefore, did not amount to an abuse of discretion.  As a result, the trial court erred by granting defendant’s motion, quashing the information, and dismissing the criminal charges against defendant.  We reverse the circuit court’s order dismissing the case and remand for the circuit court to reinstate the charges against defendant and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 


When you are facing criminal charges, it is important to quickly secure effective legal representation. As a client of Aldrich Legal Services, you will benefit from working with Michigan criminal lawyers who have defended thousands of clients.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

Speak to a Pro: (734) 404-3000



REAL ESTATE 68: Holding that plaintiffs-buyers’ allegations of fraud in this case arising from the sale of a residence did not preclude the trial court from granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition based on a release, the court affirmed.

This cause of action arises from plaintiffs’ purchase of a residence from defendant, who had rights in the house under a land contract from co-defendant, the legal owner of the house. Before the house was for sale, in January 2018, an upstairs...

REAL ESTATE 65: Determining that it could not conclude the trial court erred in its factual findings, and that it did not err in reforming a 2005 deed, the court affirmed the ruling that defendants were fee simple owners of the disputed 50-foot area

This case arose from a real-property dispute between brothers, as well as their respective wives. After a bench trial, the trial court rendered its findings of fact. The trial court determined that plaintiffs did not prove that excluding the...

FAMILY LAW 58: The trial court did not err by denying defendant-father’s motion to change custody and modify his parenting time of the parties’ child without having an evidentiary hearing to determine if there was proper cause or a change in circums

This case arose from a custody and parenting-time dispute between plaintiff-mother and father over their minor child. After father failed to respond to the paternity complaint within the 21 days of receipt of the complaint, mother filed an affidavit...

DIVORCE 53: Although the court affirmed the trial court’s decisions to deny defendant’s motions to set aside the default and the default JOD, it vacated the portions of the default JOD as to the distribution of marital property, custody, parenting t

Plaintiff filed for divorce. Defendant filed an answer and a counterclaim for divorce.  Plaintiff and defendant were both ordered to appear at the settlement conference. After defendant failed to appear, the trial court entered a default. Soon...

FAMILY LAW 53: The trial court erred by treating the parties’ GAL as an LGAL and denying the parties the right to question her at a hearing; however, the trial court did not err in requiring the parties to compensate the GAL for her services.

Plaintiff and Defendant were never married, but share a young son who was born in 2016. The parties have battled over custody, child support, and other parenting issues ever since. In the spring of 2019, the parties filed competing motions to modify...

The Difference Between Theft, Robbery, and Burglary

Original Post: 1/11/2019 Often, burglary, robbery, and theft are used interchangeably even though there are distinct differences between all of them. Though, what all three do have in common is they may involve the unlawful taking of...

REAL ESTATE 59: Concluding that the one-year period contained in the parties’ home purchase agreement was not a statute of limitations, but rather akin to a statute of repose, and that it was plain and unambiguous, the court held that it barred plai

BACKGROUND On March 12, 2016, the parties entered into an agreement for the purchase of defendants’ home. The purchase agreement contained the following clause: TIME FOR LEGAL ACTION: Buyer and Seller agree that any legal action against...

CRIMINAL LAW 16: The trial court did not err in refusing to order a Daubert hearing as to the reliability of the DataMaster breathalyzer device as MCL 257.625a(6)(a) shows the Legislature has determined that the device’s results are valid and reliabl

UNDERLYING FACTS In the early afternoon of November 4, 2016, defendant was pulled over after an officer was dispatched for a possible drunk driver. The officer had defendant exit his vehicle and perform several field sobriety tests. Those tests...

FAMILY LAW 52: Defendant-mother was not entitled to relief on her claim the trial court did not comply with the requirements for a de novo hear, the trial court did not err in using the preponderance of the evidence standard, and its best interest f

PERTINENT FACTS In July 2017, plaintiff and defendant divorced by consent judgment. Under the judgment of divorce, the parties shared joint legal and physical custody of their three minor children. On September 24, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion...

Don't let a bad decision, unfair contract, or a messy divorce get in the way of a promising future!
Contact the experienced team at Aldrich Legal Services today to schedule your free initial
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000