People of Michigan v. Tremel Anderson
327905
| Mich. Ct. App. | Nov 29, 2016Background
- On Dec. 24, 2014, an argument between defendant Tremel Anderson and victim Michael Larkins escalated in Anderson’s car; Larkins testified Anderson pulled a gun, threatened to kill him, attempted to shoot, and later fired multiple shots as he fled.
- Larkins was the sole witness at the preliminary examination; no physical evidence (gun, shell casings) or recordings/witnesses were presented by the prosecution.
- The district court found Larkins not credible — citing his focus on Christmas gifts, disorganized testimony, and lack of corroboration — and dismissed the charges for insufficient evidence (no bindover).
- The prosecution appealed to the circuit court; the circuit court dismissed the appeal without issuing the required opinion and treated it as a motion, rather than deciding the appeal on the record.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed the bindover decision de novo and affirmed the district court, holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing credibility and requiring corroboration given the witness’s perceived unreliability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in refusing to bind Anderson over to circuit court | District court should have bound over because Larkins’s testimony, if believed, provided probable cause for the charged offenses | District court properly weighed credibility and could dismiss where the sole witness was not credible and evidence lacked corroboration | No abuse of discretion; district court permissibly found the sole witness incredible and dismissed for insufficient evidence |
| Whether corroborating evidence was required for bindover when testimony exists | Bindover may be proper on single-witness testimony that establishes elements | Corroboration was needed here because the court found the witness not credible; absence of corroboration supported dismissal | Corroboration was not universally required, but district court reasonably required it given credibility concerns; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the circuit court properly handled the appeal (procedural) | Circuit court failed to follow MCR by dismissing appeal without opinion and treating it as a motion | — | Court of Appeals criticized circuit court procedure but reviewed the bindover de novo and affirmed on merits |
| Whether directed‑verdict standard should apply at preliminary examination | Prosecution urged directed‑verdict (circuit court) standard should control | District court’s probable‑cause/bindover standard governs prelims; directed‑verdict standard is inapplicable | Directed‑verdict standard not applicable; established prelim probable‑cause standards control |
Key Cases Cited
- Seewald v. People, 499 Mich. 111 (Mich. 2016) (district court must find probable cause to bind over)
- Yost v. People, 468 Mich. 122 (Mich. 2003) (district court may consider witness credibility but may not refuse bindover solely because evidence conflicts)
- Redden v. People, 290 Mich. App. 65 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010) (prelim exam requires some evidence for each element; district court may consider weight and credibility)
- Hudson v. People, 241 Mich. App. 268 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000) (abuse of discretion standard articulated)
- Lyon v. People, 310 Mich. App. 515 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015) (definition of abuse of discretion)