People of Michigan v. Hilery Noel Maison
332162
| Mich. Ct. App. | Nov 7, 2017Background
- Defendants Hilery and Andrew Maison, a married couple, were jointly tried and convicted by a jury for: felony murder (death of Andrew’s 5‑year‑old daughter Mackenzie), two counts of torture, and two counts of first‑degree child abuse (relating to Mackenzie and a 3‑year‑old, Makayla). Sentences included life imprisonment for each charge, with felony murder rendered without parole.
- Both victims exhibited severe, chronic malnutrition and dehydration; Mackenzie died of dehydration/malnutrition complicated by pneumonia and related sequelae; Makayla was hospitalized in early shock from malnutrition/dehydration and later gained weight in foster care.
- Medical testimony (Dr. Spitz and child‑abuse specialists) established chronic malnourishment, obvious physical injuries (bruising; genital inflammation/bleeding), and that young children would not voluntarily starve; defendants’ expert concurred the children were undernourished but disputed causation and degree.
- Prosecution theory: defendants knowingly/ intentionally withheld food, water, and medical care (omissions) that caused serious physical harm and, as to Mackenzie, death during the commission of first‑degree child abuse — supporting felony murder, child abuse, and torture convictions.
- Defendants raised sufficiency‑of‑evidence challenges and multiple ineffective‑assistance and jury‑instruction claims on appeal; Hilery argued counsel failed to call witnesses, challenge experts, investigate lead poisoning, and request Daubert review; Andrew argued counsel should have requested a causation instruction and an involuntary‑manslaughter instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for felony murder (Mackenzie) | Evidence shows death by malnutrition/dehydration from chronic neglect and omissions that support malice and that death occurred during first‑degree child abuse | Defendants claim lack of proof of malice, causation, and that omissions were not intentional | Affirmed — viewing evidence favorably to prosecution, jury could infer malice from chronic withholding of necessities and omission; first‑degree child abuse occurred via omission; felony murder established |
| Sufficiency for first‑degree child abuse & torture (both children) | Chronic severe malnutrition, dehydration, bruising, genital injury, and failure to seek medical care satisfy ‘‘serious physical harm’’ and support intent/cruelty for torture | Defendants argue parental authority makes custody lawful and deny intent to cause extreme suffering | Affirmed — omissions can constitute first‑degree child abuse; parental restraint not per se lawful where force/omission unreasonably causes injury; circumstantial evidence supports intent for torture |
| Hilery’s ineffective‑assistance claims (witnesses, expert impeachment, lead, Daubert) | Trial counsel made strategic choices; other witnesses covered child’s eating habits; experts agreed on malnourishment; lead testing negative; Daubert would not affect intent or cause | Hilery argued counsel failed to call son Ethan, failed to challenge experts on weight/dehydration methodology, failed to investigate lead, and failed to request a Daubert hearing | Denied — counsel’s choices were reasonable strategy or harmless; no reasonable probability of different outcome from the omitted actions |
| Andrew’s counsel claims (causation instruction, lesser included offense) | Evidence supported murder causation and malice; defense presented expert theory of pneumonia as primary cause but still showed chronic neglect | Andrew argued counsel should have requested specific causation and involuntary‑manslaughter instructions given contested cause of death | Denied — evidence did not support a reasonable view entitling involuntary‑manslaughter instruction; causation instruction was unnecessary given defense strategy and expert testimony that still supported a causal link via neglect |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Osby, 291 Mich App 412 (sufficiency review standard)
- People v Alter, 255 Mich App 194 (standard for viewing evidence in sufficiency challenges)
- People v Smith, 478 Mich 292 (elements of first‑degree felony murder)
- People v Carines, 460 Mich 750 (malice inference from setting in motion a force likely to cause death or great bodily harm)
- People v Portellos, 298 Mich App 431 (failure to seek medical help can support first‑degree child abuse)
- People v Kanaan, 278 Mich App 594 (circumstantial evidence suffices to infer intent/state of mind)
- Lenawee County v Wagley, 301 Mich App 134 (Daubert gatekeeping and context‑specific reliability inquiry)