Probable cause; Second-degree murder; Requirement that the death be caused by an act of the defendant; “Malice”

The court held that the “evidence presented at the preliminary examination was sufficient to establish probable cause that defendant committed the crime of second-degree murder.” Also, because “a showing of probable cause means that a court must bind the defendant over,” the district court abused its discretion when it declined to do so. The prosecution argued that the district court erred when it dismissed the murder charge against him on the ground that probable cause had not been established. The court agreed. It was undisputed that victim-C “died as a result of multiple blunt force traumas to the head, and that defendant presented no evidence or argument concerning lawful justification.” Thus, only the second and third elements of second-degree murder (i.e., his identity as the actor who caused C’s death and whether he acted with malice) were at issue at the preliminary examination. The evidence, when viewed in the aggregate, casted “significant doubt on defendant’s version of the events and is sufficient to lead a person of ‘ordinary prudence and caution to conscientiously entertain reasonable belief of the accused’s guilt.’” The court held that particularly in light of the fact that probable cause is “not a very demanding threshold,” the evidence presented was sufficient to establish probable cause as to the second element of second-degree murder. The evidence strongly suggested that the harm caused to C “was done, if not with an intent to kill or cause great bodily harm, in obvious disregard of life-endangering consequences.” Also, to “the extent the district court found that probable cause had not been established that defendant had acted with malice, it erred. While the evidence supporting defendant’s identity as the perpetrator of the crime and state of mind was circumstantial, circumstantial evidence” was sufficient to find probable cause. Also, the circumstantial evidence presented “easily leads a person of ‘ordinary prudence and caution to conscientiously entertain a reasonable belief of the accused’s guilt.’” In other words, the facts were sufficient to establish probable cause that he “committed the crime of second-degree murder, which is all that is required to bind defendant over at a preliminary examination. The evidence may or may not definitively prove that defendant committed the crime, but that decision is not necessary at the preliminary examination; it is for the trier of fact.” Thus, he should have been bound over. Reversed and remanded.