State v. Merrill, 2012 UT App 3

Merrill charged with criminal homicide, child abuse homicide, and reckless endangerment in 2007; Nielsen charged similarly in related case.
District court denied motion to quash bindovers, binding Merrill over for trial on both charges.
Infant died on August 18, 2006; later autopsy by Dr. Leis yielded undetermined cause, with possible positional asphyxia and meningitis as risk factors.
Infant reportedly slept between Merrill and Nielsen; various officers testified about sleeping arrangement and alleged injury patterns.
Prosecution presented Dr. Leis’s probability-based opinion that positional asphyxia was most likely, though not certain, and lividity patterns suggesting death occurred after shifting to a face-down position.
Appeals focus on whether the bindovers were supported by probable cause, including admissibility of medical expert testimony and sufficiency of evidence linking Merrill to the infant’s death.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Dr. Leis’s testimony	Leis’s lack of medical certainty renders testimony improper.	Expert testimony can be probabilistic and based on best judgment without medical certainty.	Admissible; uncertainties left for trial.
Sufficiency of causation evidence for child abuse homicide	Dr. Leis’s testimony, plus lividity evidence, supports Merrill caused death.	Causation is speculative and not proven by a pretrial standard.	Sufficient to bind over; reasonable inference Merrill caused death.
Sufficiency of evidence of abuse (gross deviation)	Co-sleeping with heavy sleepers created a substantial risk and gross deviation from standard of care.	Risk magnitude not shown; co-sleeping not gross deviation.	Sufficient evidence of gross deviation; bindover affirmed.
Bindover on reckless endangerment	Evidence shows Merrill consciously disregarded a substantial risk during co-sleeping.	Similar to negligence; failure to perceive risk not at issue.	Sufficient evidence of risk and gross deviation; bindover affirmed.
Equal protection and due process / classification argument	District court placed Merrill in a separate class by focusing on co-sleeping risk.	Argues constitutional issues with inadequate briefing and analysis.	Not addressed due to inadequate briefing.

State v. Graham, 143 P.3d 268 (2006 UT) (probable-cause standard; limited deference on bindover)
State v. Virgin, 137 P.3d 787 (2006 UT) (probable-cause standard; evidence need not prove guilt beyond doubt)
State v. Talbot, 972 P.2d 435 (Utah 1998) (medical certainty not required; uncertainties reserved for fact-finder)
State v. Jarrell, 608 P.2d 218 (Utah 1980) (expert opinion may be probabilistic and not require certainty)
State v. Clark, 20 P.3d 300 (Utah 2001) (bindover standard; low quantum of probable cause)
State v. Robinson, 63 P.3d 105 (Utah App. 2003) (view evidence in light favorable to prosecution at bindover)
State v. D.K., 153 P.3d 736 (Utah App. 2006) (bindover sufficiency; trial standard discussed)
In re I.R.C., 232 P.3d 1040 (Utah 2010) (mixed question of law and fact; deference at bindover)