Motion to quash the information & dismiss the charges; People v. Lowery; People v. Anderson; Probable cause; People v. Taylor; People v. Seewald; Identity; People v. Bass

Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that there was probable cause to bind defendant over on armed robbery and felony-firearm charges, the court reversed the circuit court’s order granting his motion to quash the bindover and dismissing the charges. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the court concluded that it offered sufficient evidence at the preliminary exam to establish probable cause to bind defendant over for trial. The evidence showed that victims-Z and H “were accosted by two men who demanded money, one of whom pointed a handgun at” Z, then at H, and then fired the gun at H’s car. H testified that, as he tried to flee in his car, “the two men physically contacted his vehicle in an effort to cause him to stop. The perpetrator with the gun” tried to open the driver-side door. He saw the other man hit “the front of his car with his hand. After the incident, police officers found a shell casing on the ground in the parking lot and possible blood drops located on the passenger-side door of” H’s car. An officer “photographed, collected, and placed into evidence samples of the blood . . . .” Test results showed “to an extraordinarily high degree of probability that the DNA from the blood found on” H’s car matched that obtained from defendant pursuant to a warrant. The court found that “the district court could reasonably infer, consistent with the theory of the case presented by the prosecution, that the drops of defendant’s blood on [H’s] vehicle were deposited there when defendant, as one of the two perpetrators of the charged crimes, struck [H’s] vehicle’s passenger side during the commission of the" crimes. The trial court noted that H “testified that the assailant hit the front of the vehicle’s passenger side near the hood, but police found defendant’s blood on the passenger-side door between the handle and the window.” The court noted that, even if this could be found to be inconsistent, “the presentation of contradictory or inconsistent evidence at a preliminary examination is not fatal to a district court’s decision to bind over a defendant.” The fact that some of the evidence may not perfectly align was for the triers of fact to resolve at trial. Remanded for reinstatement of the charges.