*1
Stafford
v STAFFORD
PEOPLE
6).
(Calendar
2,May
Decided
Argued
No.
83317.
Docket No.
22, 1990.
January
arising
open
charged
from the
murder
Stafford was
Susan
Court, James
stabbing
boyfriend.
52-3 District
The
death of her
J.,
trial for involun-
Sheehy,
over for
the defendant
P.
bound
premedita-
noting
only,
manslaughter
tary
lack
evidence
indicating
acted in
that she had
of facts
and the existence
tion
Court,
Circuit
malice. The Oakland
and without
self-defense
Ziem, J.,
to the district court
the case
remanded
Frederick C.
argument,
testimony and
proceedings.
further
After
for further
finding
court,
re-
explicitly
facts or
new
without
the district
examination,
findings
treating
initial
bound
at the
from the
Oster,
murder, citing People
second-degree
over for
defendant
(1976). Thereafter,
con-
the defendant was
App 490
manslaughter.
involuntary
Court of
jury
victed
Beasley
J.,
Edwards,
and P.
Appeals,
Kelly,
P.
and
J.
Michael
binding
magistrate
JJ., reversed, holding
erred
that the
91298).
(Docket
second-degree
No.
murder
over for
defendant
people appeal.
joined by
Levin,
Justices
opinion
Brickley,
Justice
In an
Supreme
held:
Archer,
Court
Cavanagh,
reversing
clearly
did not
err
The Court of
second-degree
defendant for
of the
over
murder.
arriving
magistrate
the entire record
must examine
1. A
magis-
scope
regarding probable
cause. The
decision
at a
prosecution has
inquiry
is not limited to whether
trate’s
regarding
the offense. The
presented
each element of
evidence
an exami-
magistrate
required
after
to make a determination
is
Although
prosecution has
matter.
nation of the whole
element,
upon an examina-
presented
if
evidence on each
some
satisfy
insufficient
the evidence is
of the whole matter
tion
charged
has been committed
the offense
that the defendant
to believe
cause
and that there
it,
the defen-
should not bind
committed
then
charged,
may
a lesser
over on
but
bind
for the offense
dant over
offense.
case,
record in
the entire
did review
2. In this
Mich reaching
his initial decision
bind over
that the offense of first-
found insufficient reason
believe
because,
committed
on the
murder had been
premeditation
presented,
were
basis of the evidence
malice and
Rather,
manslaughter
lacking.
he found that the offense of
*2
to believe
been committed and that there was
cause
remand, however, the
had committed it. On
that the defendant
change
by People
magistrate
felt constrained
v Oster
doing
Appeals
in
so the
The Court of
found that
decision.
magistrate impermissibly
Al-
failed to exercise his discretion.
reversing
though
magistrate’s
for
his initial deter-
reasons
might arguably support differing interpretations,
mination
support
reading
Appeals
not without
of the Court
record,
clearly error.
and therefore not
Affirmed.
Boyle
Griffin,
Riley,
joined by Justices
Chief Justice
dissenting,
authority
to re-
stated that
the circuit court
the case to the district court and did not abuse
mand
its
decision,
doing.
overturning
discretion in so
Appeals usurped
legitimate exercise of discretion
the Court of
Although
judgment.
by the
and substituted its own
Oster,
upon People
App
relied
67 Mich
the
(1976),
legal guidance,
rely
solely making
he did not
on it
in
for
decision,
unique
case
his
but also considered the
facts of the
assessing
in
the additional
and reviewed the whole matter
second-degree
supported
murder.
evidence which
a bindover for
Appeals
should be reversed and
The decision of
Court
involuntary manslaughter reinstated.
the conviction for
(1988)
247;
App
i prosecutor charged open defendant with stabbing boyfriend, murder for the death of her Jeffrey July developed Huff, 1985. facts preliminary hearing at the trial and at revealed Virginia that defendant and Huff inmet West September or either October 1984. Huff relocated Michigan following month, and he and companions Oxford, defendant became live-in Michigan, *3 soon afterwards. Defendant testified together fairly happily that she and Huff lived for beginning However, the first of three months 1985. ending 1985, in March and with Huff’s death on July 16, defendant testified that numerous inci- physi- dents of violent abuse occurred where Huff cally slapped, threatened, choked and battered her. preceded stabbing
A number of attacks on July July 12, 16. On defendant testified that Huff riding, attacked her out while horseback threaten- ing nearly causing go to kill her and her horse to police out control. Defendant called and they to advised her remove from her residence gift guns purchased she had a earlier as for Huff. police nearby departed. hid Huff until the days July driving later, Two on while in an argued automobile, Huff and over defendant guns, subsequently removal of the and Huff moving pushed automobile. from the defendant residence at defendant’s The violence escalated Murphy, teenage daughter, when defendant’s struggled, Murphy Huff Huff and intervened. ground. against girl’s Mur- face slammed phy teeth and lacerations suffered broken hospital. required stitches at a which mouth police again responded incident, did not this but Huff. arrest counseling sought from an Huff
Defendant and drug July 16. Later counselor alcohol and abuse buy evening, food car to Huff took defendant’s evening’s testified she meal. Defendant began worry Huff failed to return after when period she and her time. She testified that some daughter the residence
had decided to leave daughter prevent once Huff of her further abuse with her automobile. returned smelling Eventually alcohol, Huff, returned accompanied by friend, Mills, in Mills’ car. a male spoke on the that while she Defendant telephone, testified attacking began her. Huff entered and subterfuge, casually told Huff she defendant As a needed to
get cigarette, ran to a but instead Upon neighbor’s nearby. arrival, house female neighbor, urgently Farden, to asked the telephone police Defendant then for assistance. daughter telephoned to check on her her residence receiving upon answer, in haste but, no returned way out, defen- her Farden to her home. On large grabbed knife from Farden’s butcher dant kitchen, retrieved a baseball bat and Farden dog. shepherd collared her German *4 residence, defendant at defendant’s asked Once daughter Murphy to come to call for her Farden Murphy outside, followed came out of the house. shortly Huff Huff. Defendant and afterward People v Stafford Opinion op the Court exchanged angry night words in the dark and an initially altercation ensued which Huff attacked point during both Farden and defendant. At some struggle, pene- the knife held steps trated Huff’s chest. He fell, walked a few dying him, at the scene. Defendant followed seeing blood on the knife exclaimed numerous my police times, God, "Oh I’ve him.” stabbed just arrived minutes later and arrested defendant for murder.
n At the conclusion of the initial ex- magistrate amination, declined to bind the defendant over for either first- or magistrate explicitly murder. The noted a lack premeditation part evidence of on the defendant’s indicating and the existence of facts that she acted including in mony malice, self-defense and without testi- sought police protection that she had past, police just prior had called the to the stab- bing, and that the victim had initiated the fatal altercation. The nevertheless concluded stabbing the defendant’s conduct in decedent probable with a knife evidenced cause of a reckless supporting indifference for life over for manslaughter. Consequently, bound charge the defendant over for trial on the involuntary manslaughter only. prosecution trial,
Before moved to remand examining present the case to the additional evidence on degree cause of second- prosecution Specifically, murder. de- present testimony sired to of the medical examiner and to introduce into evidence the knife wielded *5 Mich 125 130 434 night of the homicide.1 defendant on the objection granted the this motion over trial court counsel, and remanded the case of defense preliminary proceedings. further remand alone testified on The medical examiner speculated magistrate. that the the He before on the decedent indicated knife wound inflicted opined type” that the defen- thrust. He also "hook impal- necessarily been aware of dant would ing have withdrawing testimony the knife. His testimony only that contradicted the defendant’s after decedent fell did she realize she had stabbed Additionally, prosecution introduced the him. homicide
weapon into evidence. closing argument, prosecution for the its supra, People Oster, first time cited the case of required and contended that Oster second-degree mur- to bind the defendant over for examination, At of the der. magistrate conclusion and bound reversed his initial decision over for murder as the defendant requested prosecution. by the magistrate, although referred to "new he explicitly any evidence,” new facts or did not find findings retreat from his at the initial examina- However, "[i]t asserted that tion. was never the intention of the analyze
Court to testimony of the witnesses to the evidence weigh prepare the evidence to such an extent as give Nonetheless, a defense for the defendant.” findings his initial reiterated preliminary testify The medical examiner did not at the initial stipulated parties the knife wound was examination because the completed his of death. The medical examiner had the cause autopsy report of the initial examination. at the time charged 766.4; person a crime to a MCL preliminary though MSA 28.922 entitles a arraignment. days Al within twelve examination twelve-day rule constitutes reversible the violation Weston, 371, 376; trial, People NW2d error at (1982), good prosecution may cause. obtain a continuance for People v Stafford Opinion op the Coukt strong indicating "reviewing evidence self-defense: evidence, it all the seems clear that in the mind daughter danger the defendant [although] that her inwas daughter . . . the was not as much thought danger maybe the defendant she was. away However, that does not take from fact Court finds that the defendant was aof daughter that her still in mind trouble.” *6 People on focused Oster in his concluding dispositive and remarks: The Court opportunity has had an to read Peo- ple presented by versus as Oster been the [sic]
prosecutor. para- And the Court will read the one graph guiding presented interesting that I find pertinent is or Page case. this On "The evidence the
at
examination showed the defen-
dant stabbed Goodman with the knife and that
as
Goodman died
a result. This
clearly
sufficient
second-degree
to
the
on
bind
defendant over
mur-
charge,
the
necessary
charge
der
as
malice
for the
may
presumed
be
deadly weapon
from the use of a
perpetrated
killing.”
which
the
on in
Later
that
opinion,
Appeals
para-
the Court of
refers to those
graphs
guidelines
as
and the Court
use
will
this as
guideline
in this
to
obligations
case as
the
of an
examining magistrate.
very
While the Court could
the
easily take
infor-
presented
weigh
mation or the evidence
and
as to
homicide,
degrees
the —as between the
of the
it’s
to,
not
evidence
the
of
duty
the Court
from all of the
presented,
to
stand
the shoes of the
fact,
I
try
trier
that.
and
that
to
follow
and
follow
case,
People
if
says
this
the
v Oster
that
the
that’s
sufficient amount to bind
over
defen-
murder,
second-degree
on
think
dant
then I
that
argument
must continue with the trier of fact
meaning
to what
fight
as
of the
was and
the defendant
in such heat
whether
that —to
manslaughter
something
and
reduce this to
that’s
for
trier of fact to find.
The Court’s satisfied
the addition of the
information, witnesses,
amount
that
the minimum
presented
support
has been
of evidence
case,
in this
second-degree
murder
bindover
just
I
being
paragraph that
set out
that
specifically
you
out
v Oster. I do
read
find, though,
premeditation,
no
and
there was
that
support
degree
aforethought
malice
first
no
murder,
upon
that I will not bind
and based
[sic]
charge.
open murder
The rest
over on
fact,
trier of
from the
degrees is left
for the
evidence,
interpretation
of what
their [sic]
supplied.]
[Emphasis
was.
evidence
the defen-
consequently
bound
A
con-
second-degree
jury
over
for
murder.
dant
involuntary manslaughter,
Stafford
victed
Appeals
The Court of
reversed
appealed.
she
conviction,2
erred in
holding
mur-
over for
also
the trial
der. The Court of
held
new evi-
presentation
remand
court’s
process
right
defendant’s
to due
dence violated the
to the
issue and
only
of law. We affirm
former
latter
unnecessary
find it
to address
therefore
*7
issue whether
the remand
erroneous.3_
valid
mise verdict.”
requires
(1975),
We held
charge
that a conviction of a
reversal "because a defendant’s chances of
is
substantially
People
v
Vail,
decreased
393 Mich
charge
by
unwarranted
460, 464;
possibility
acquittal
III People King, 153-155; 312 scope NW2d 629 this Court delineated the preliminary of the function at a ex- King magistrate amination. We held that a arriving must examine the entire record in at a regarding probable decision cause. We said there scope magistrate’s inquiry that the of the is prosecution limited to whether has presented evidence on each element of the offense. magistrate required to make his determina- tion "after an examination of the whole matter.” Although prosecution presented has some evi- element, upon dence on each if an examination of the whole matter the evidence is insufficient satisfy charged the offense has been committed and that there is cause it, to believe that the defendant committed then he should not bind the defendant over on the charged offense may but bind him over on a lesser offense as to which he is so satisfied. [412 154.] Appeals holding The Court of in the instant case that relying abdicated his discretion literally narrowly too Oster, supra, King. accords our decision in preliminary
A review of the initial examination indicates that the did review the entire reaching record before him in his initial decision just King, defendant, and, to bind over the in supra, pp 154-155,
found insufficient reason to believe that the offense response challenge sufficiency We note in that defendant did of the evidence at her motion for directed verdict. an examination and at trial on a Moreover, prosecution did not make argument challenge sufficiency that defendant failed to And, Appeals. course, evidence this Court or in the Court of we *8 granted sufficiency leave on the issue of the of the evidence. 125 Mich 134 op the Court commit- second-degree murder had been of first- or because, presented, mal- the evidence ted based that lacking. He found were premeditation ice and committed manslaughter had been the offense of that the defendant probable cause believe and it. committed had however, felt con- remand, On doing Oster change By that decision. strained that found so, Appeals exercise his discretion. failed to impermissibly indi- in this case testimony uncontradicted and her defendant the victim attacked cated that defen- ensuing fray during that neighbor and examina- At the initial the victim. dant stabbed did that the evidence tion, noted part defendant’s a to kill on plan not indicate that, history the decedent’s given concluded had reasonable abuse, domestic daughter safety of her to fear for grounds herself. findings remand, stated
On
but he
respect,
any significant
fact did not differ
this time on Oster guiding”
"pertinent
relied
findings. The
previous
negated
his
way
in a
this
reliance on
Appeals
concluded
rising
Oster
an
of discretion
constituted
abdication
error by
find no clear
discretion. We
to abuse of
holding.4
in so
Court of
distinguishable. Oster
The Oster case
factually
party,
men at a
two
fight
involved a
between
knife,
down
leapt
out a
pulled
the defendant
which
times.
the victim several
and stabbed
stairway,
a
stabbing by
contrast,
single
this case involved
a man
woman of
smaller
who
physically
422, 446-448;
McIntosh,
App
NW2d
See
(1977),
1;
grounds
Moreover, case. The Oster this did not control Oster showing that the defendant that evidence held fatally "clearly to is sufficient the victim stabbed second-degree murder on a over defendant bind charge necessary charge, for that malice as the weapon deadly presumed may use of a from the be App killing.” perpetrate 496. While to this remains statement, does Oster an accurate suggest regarded just dis- should be other evidence that all deadly of a of the use because right weapon. to use The seemed finding cause insufficient standard premeditation initial examina- at the and malice disregarded apparently tion, remand but then on obligation perform of the an "examination to his in Oster. of one sentence matter” because whole Appeals case held that in the instant The Court of the little into the and too much into Oster read too examining
scope function of the magistrate’s King. Although rea- outlined might reversing determination his initial sons for differing interpretations, support arguably Appeals reading support is not without Court of decline record.5 We therefore interpretation error. as clear its overturn Court of decision of the affirm the We appropriately that "when dissent observes differing interpretations, of those reasoning subject and one discretion,” wrong proper it is interpretations use constitutes However, magistrate. supports interpretation not follow the Dissenting Opinion Riley, C.J. proceedings and remand for consistent with this opinion. JJ.,
Levin, Cavanagh, concurred Archer, J. Brickley, (dissenting). Riley, C.J. I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. presented by appeal.
Two issues are
this
first issue is whether
the circuit court
erred
remanding
magistrate.
the case to the
The second
issue is whether
abandoned his
*10
discretion
defendant over on second-
degree
charges
prelimi-
murder
after the second
nary
majority
examination. The
fails to address
solely
the first issue and focuses
on the second.
majority
I believe that
the
should have first
decided whether
the circuit court’s remand was
proper
improper,
because, if the remand was
the
discretion issue would have been rendered moot.
separately
Therefore, I write
to indicate that while
implicit
I can concur in the conclusion
in the
majority opinion
proper,
the remand was
I
agree
cannot
with the ultimate conclusion reached
by
majority
that the
abandoned his
by relying solely
People
discretion
on
Oster,
v
67
(1976).
App 490;
Mich
i presented appeal The first issue is whether properly the circuit court remanded the case to to hear additional evidence. I find magistrate’s our might observation that support reasons a differ- interpretation judgment clear, ent error when the legal does not in our result interpreta- Court of did not find a different support tion findings. that would 137 Stafford v Dissenting Opinion Riley, J.C. authority to remand the circuit court had court, its and did not discretion the district abuse implicit I ordering. agree majority’s in so with the finding judgment and would reverse of Appeals. recognized authority has long This Court has jurisdiction once it the circuit court remand People Miklovich, a criminal case.1 In (1965), the circuit court 536; 134 NW2d bindover, quashed for a found insufficient evidence information, the case to the remanded ,that once the magistrate. argued The defendant was the circuit court quash granted, motion to to remand cause. jurisdiction without Court stated:
Jurisdiction, having once circuit vested court, granting was not lost virtue Therefore, quash motion to the information. authority, upon motion of the circuit court examining magistrate prosecutor, to remand to the for further examination. Mich 539.] [375 People Kennedy, 339; 183 See 384 Mich also Genesee Prosecutor v Gene NW2d Judge, Circuit see 115; 215 NW2d (1974). *11 People New, v 482; Mich 398 358 427 NW2d recognized option of a again this Court to remand there is an judge
circuit court when 1 upon acquires jurisdiction court from the district court circuit filing proper by whom a defendant of a return before examination, Curtis, People v Mich been 389 has examined waived 698; (1973); 209 243 Genesee Prosecutor v Genesee Circuit NW2d Johnson, 115; (1974); People Judge, 427 215 145 v 391 Mich NW2d (1986). 98; 219 Mich 398 NW2d 600.611; provides "circuit have MCL MSA 27A.611 courts power any proper fully jurisdiction to to make order effectuate jurisdiction judgments.” the circuit courts’ Mich 125 Dissenting Opinion by Riley, C.J. insufficiency proofs below.2 In the instant case, Court of misinterpreted New qualifying "the trial remand, court’s to authority the condition being that the evidence be insuffi- cient to show the commission of the crime or the defendant’s participation However, in it.”3 New Court stated that [i]f, the circuit judge court finds the evidence insuf-
ficient to show the commission of the crime or participation it, defendant’s in may he either dis- charges miss the or remand the cause to the examining magistrate for further examination. [Id. at 495.]
The language does not limit power court’s remand, but merely states the court may remand despite insufficient evidence for a bind- over.
This Court has also acknowledged the authority
of the circuit court
to remand when it amends an
information
to include a new charge on which a
defendant did not have a
examination,
People v
Bercheny,
431;
The authorities
set out above acknowledge
power of circuit courts to remand once
have
they
jurisdiction of a criminal case. There is no author-
ity
precludes
which
circuit courts from exercising
opinion
New,
Cavanagh,
in
written
Justice
states that
procedure
bind-over
prosecutor,
"[t]he
is structured so as to allow the
upon
court,
attempt
remand
remedy
the circuit
any
insuffi
ciency
proof
requisite
order to establish the
cause.”
The efficient administration process supports power strongly of a cir- the tice presented by in to remand a situation cuit court prosecution moved remand the instant case. The because additional evidence preliminary first
arose after the prosecution The was examination.5 magistrate’s ruling, questioning therefore the option. appeal the court not an If was an precluded was remanding, options only its would from trying poten- dismissal or consist of charge. Although tially dismissal inaccurate refiling certainly allowable, this would lend are complication inefficiency pre- unnecessary proceedings. trial
Having authority found trial courts have question remand, I face circuit whether remanding its to the court abused discretion magistrate to hear additional evidence. its to find that a trial court abused order judge
discretion, I to find that the trial would have Spalding v 810 set out breached Spalding, standards 384-385; 94 NW2d (1959):_ testimony examiner concern medical evidence findings report. magistrate inquired
ing
autopsy
about
examination,
autopsy report at
end of the first
report
at that time.
was unavailable
but
Mich Dissenting Opinion by Riley, C.J.
Where,
here,
exercise
discretion turns
upon
the
than a difference in
a factual
made
trier
determination
*13
facts,
an
of
abuse
discretion involves far more
judicial opinion
between the
appellate
trial and
itself involves the idea of
courts. The term discretion
choice,
of an exercise of
will,
compet-
the
ing
of a determination made between
considerations.
order
have an
"abuse” in
determination,
reaching such
the result must be so
palpably
grossly
logic
violative
fact and
per-
that
versity
defiance
it evidences not the exercise of will but
will,
judgment
not the
exercise
but
thereof,
not
the exercise of reason but
passion
rather of
or bias.
People
However,
Williams,
in
v Charles O
565, 573;
I find the circuit court was well within its remanding discretion the case to the district Although Supreme court. has ex pressly placed on limitations remands in this situ recently ation, the court rules have restricted following successive examinations in the manner. 6.110(F)6 provides: MCR Discharge If, considering Defendant. after evidence, the probable court determines cause does not exist to believe either that an offense has been committed or that the defendant committed it, discharge the court must the defendant without prejudice prosecutor initiating subsequent prosecution for Except pro- the same offense. as 8.111(C), subsequent in MCR preliminary vided examination must be held before the judicial same prosecutor present officer and the evidence must additional to support charge. [Emphasis added.] 6.110(F) MCR became effective 1989. October v Stafford Dissenting Riley, C.J. investiga- under fairness to those rule insures This successively for the same examined who are tion case, to remand motion In the instant offense. refiling by prosecu- as effect same examination At the first tion. magistrate probable on the cause found insufficient charge for in- over and bound defendant murder prosecution manslaughter. voluntary moved be examined that defendant could remand so charge. again The effect was the on the murder the case had dismissed same if charge murder cause on the for lack of prosecutor Thus, the limita- had refiled. 6.110(F) refiling MCR should found in tions evaluating judge’s guide the trial granting the motion to exercise of discretion *14 remand. prosecution addi- to remand offer
The moved the ear- unavailable at evidence which was tional ad- The additional evidence examination. lier magis- of malice which the the element dressed lacking preliminary first hear- at the trate found ing. admit of Defendant presented. Further- was that additional evidence initial more, that made the the same hearing. presided over the second determination prosecution’s motion that the There is no evidence made for made bad faith or was to remand was harassing purpose I find that the of defendant. comport limitations with the court’s actions circuit on 6.110(F) refiling and do not MCR set forth I reverse would an abuse discretion. constitute the decision Appeals. of the Court of ii magis- is whether the next issue to address charge wrongly on a over bound defendant trate Mich Dissenting Opinion by Riley, C.J. preliminary murder after the second majority examination. I dissent from the which improper that was found magistrate the bindover because the failed to examine the whole matter relying solely supra, making Oster, his decision.7
A.
THE
EXAMINATION OF
WHOLE MATTER
People King,
this
As
Court stated in
(1981), magistrate’s
145, 154;
At examination, second new presented. evidence on the element malice The medical examiner testified that the "knife wound inflicted on the decedent indicated 'hook type’ opined thrust. [The examiner] medical also necessarily defendant would been have impaling withdrawing aware the knife.” p spoke Ante, 130. This additional evidence to the nature of the knife wound and reflected on the testimony, mental state of defendant. From this could infer malice. report autopsy testimony and examiner’s hearing. were not However, available for the first *15 hearing, magistrate at the end first inquired findings report. autopsy about the respond opinion I majority While dissent to the and Court of decision, analysis I think that a harmless error would have way disposing been an effective in the issues this On case. appeal, defendant does claim that there was insufficient evidence second-degree murder, for a bindover on nor she does claim that she involuntary manslaughter was convicted of on insufficient evidence. Stafford Dissenting Riley, C.J. Presumably, inquired thought he because he report would be material to his determination. autopsy report Given the relevance of the to the hearing, incident, and its in absence the first hearing being first fell short an examination of all relevant information. The admission of the testimony hearing at the second facilitated a com- plete supported examination of the matter and second-degree bindover for murder. magistrate’s opinion is indicative his
thorough examination at the second hearing. findings He makes detailed of fact with regard Furthermore, to the whole incident. in arriving magistrate decision, at his refers to Viewing "additional” and "new evidence.” the en- opinion, tire it is clear that the consid- ered and understood all of the relevant facts making my view, his decision. In he made a suffi- cient examination of the entire matter.
B. ABANDONMENT OF DISCRETION majority holds that aban- doned his discretion in defendant over second-degree Again, disagree. murder. I magistrate properly
I believe that exercised Judging his discretion in this case. the different hearings, outcomes of the two difficulty deciding whether the evidence war- ranted a bindover for murder. This is understandable. The facts do not dictate a deci- way undisputed sion one or another. It is boyfriend. defendant stabbed and killed her What disputed stabbing is whether the was accidental intentional, and, intentional, if whether killing was excusable. factually cases, close it is the hallmark of a
magistrate that he exercise
his discretion
deter-
*16
144 Riley, C. J. by Dissenting Opinion a support exists to mining probable cause whether bindover, not interfered findings that his be and there is a "clear reviewing a court unless by with Doss, 406 Mich People of v abuse discretion.” (1979). 101; 276 NW2d 486, 491; 251 Dellabonda, 265 Mich People In v Doss, at supra People cited in NW 101, the Court stated: question is for Primarily the of cause by
the of determination the consideration agree examining magistrate. may This court findings the of such but it has no judgment except his right its for substitute [Emphasis case a clear abuse of discretion. added.] the decision in the
By overturning magistrate’s case, in fact Appeals engaged instant the Court of the finding for that of judgment and substituted its magistrate. "[although states majority magistrate’s reversing his initial reasons for differing might support determination arguably Ap- of the Court of interpretations, reading Ante, peals is not record.” support without added). p majority I is (emphasis believe wrong Ap- Court of affirm decision magistrate’s reasoning subject when the peals differing interpre- one of interpretations, those a use of discretion. proper tations constitutes magis- Appeals clearly erred because supported at least properly trate’s decision It reasoning. entirely of his is an one construction magistrate’s opinion reasonable construction of the matter, including that he whole examined evidence, additional over choosing inter- murder. another By supporting one pretation over reasonable I findings, believe Stafford Dissenting Opinion Riley, C.J. judgment substituted its for that of the magistrate. given Deference should have been magistrate’s decision absent clear abuse dis- cretion. my opinion, rely solely did not *17 making Though Oster in he his decision. used guidance, legal
Oster for he also considered the unique amply case, facts of this and the record supports the conclusion he reviewed the assessing whole matter the additional evidence supported which bindover mur- Essentially, usurped Appeals der. legitimate the Court of magistrate,
exercise of discretion judgment. substituted its own judgment I would reverse involuntary manslaugh- and reinstate the ter conviction.
Boyle JJ., Griffin, Riley, concurred C.J.