People of Michigan v. Elizabeth Ann Dubois ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •             If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
    revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.
    STATE OF MICHIGAN
    COURT OF APPEALS
    PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,                                     UNPUBLISHED
    July 28, 2022
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v                                                                    No. 359816
    Lapeer Circuit Court
    ELIZABETH ANN DUBOIS,                                                LC No. 19-013444-FC
    Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: M. J. KELLY, P.J., and MURRAY and BORRELLO, JJ.
    PER CURIAM.
    In this interlocutory criminal appeal, the prosecution appeals by leave granted1 the circuit
    court’s order denying its motion to amend the complaint and information to add a charge of first-
    degree felony murder, MCL 750.316(1)(b). For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we reverse
    the circuit court’s order denying the prosecution’s motion to amend the complaint and information,
    and we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
    I. BASIC FACTS
    This case arises from Dubois’s failure to seek medical treatment for her son, Austin
    Raymond, despite his repeated requests that she do so and his evident illness. Dubois was initially
    charged with first-degree child abuse, MCL 750.136b(2) and second-degree child abuse, MCL
    750.136b(3).2 Austin testified at the preliminary examination on those charges.
    1
    People v Dubois, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered March 16, 2022 (Docket
    No. 359816).
    2
    This Court recently explained that a second-degree child abuse conviction cannot be premised
    upon a failure to seek medical attention. See People v Bryant, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW2d
    ___ (2022) (Docket No. 356125); slip op at 1. Although not raised as an issue by the parties, we
    note that because the evidence at the preliminary examination and the continued preliminary
    -1-
    Austin testified that he noticed something wrong with his throat in July 2016. At the time
    he was 15 years old. By September 2016, his symptoms had become significantly worse. He had
    trouble eating and noticed issues with his speech. He told Dubois of his symptoms, but she did
    not take any steps to seek treatment for him. By November 2016, Austin could not eat solid foods.
    He testified that he basically lived off Ramen Noodles and Mountain Dew. His energy levels were
    so low that, despite wanting to, he was unable to go hunting with his grandfather. As his symptoms
    worsened, he repeatedly asked Dubois to see a doctor. He again told her that he could not eat and
    added that he now had difficulty breathing. Dubois did not take him to a doctor. Instead, on
    multiple occasions, she told him that he “was fine” and that she did not “want to waste gas” on
    him. Other times she told him that he was just suffering from allergies. In December 2016, Dubois
    gave him a throat spray, but it did not help. Instead, Austin’s symptoms continued to worsen and
    he also lost significant weight. Austin, who was 5’9” tall, estimated his weight to be approximately
    86 pounds at that time.
    On December 29, 2016, Child Protective Services (CPS) learned that Austin had been
    complaining of a sore throat for an extended period of time and begging to see a doctor. A CPS
    investigator responded to the home. She testified that Austin was very thin, pale, and could not
    speak clearly. Although it was very hard to understand him, the investigator ascertained that he
    wanted to go to the doctor. Dubois told the investigator that Austin’s inability to speak was caused
    by a bad dental appointment in August or September 2016. Austin, however, testified that the last
    time he had been to the dentist was when he was in sixth grade, i.e., when he was approximately
    11 years old. The CPS investigator directed Dubois to take Austin for medical treatment. Dubois
    waited two days and then told Austin’s stepfather to take him to urgent care. At that visit, medical
    personnel indicated that Austin had “possible polyps” and directed follow-up care with an ear,
    nose, and throat specialist. Dubois did not follow-up, however.
    At a family gathering in January 2017, Austin was weak, emaciated, and embarrassed about
    his physical appearance. He went to another room to be by himself, but his aunt, noticing his
    appearance, took his blood pressure. She then insisted that he be taken to the hospital immediately.
    Austin’s sister, grandmother, and stepfather took him to a local hospital. Dubois did not go with
    them. That hospital referred Austin to the University of Michigan Hospital for treatment. Dubois
    did not go with him initially because she did not believe that there was anything wrong with him.
    Austin was diagnosed with chordoma, a form of cancer. It was recommended that the
    cancerous mass be surgically removed, but Dubois initially withheld consent for the surgery.
    Although she later consented and the surgery was performed, a second surgery was also required.
    Because Austin was malnourished, however, the second surgery had to be delayed. During the
    delay, the cancerous mass grew.
    examination only support an inference that Dubois failed to seek medical care for Austin, there is
    not probable cause to support the second-degree child abuse conviction. Consequently, on remand,
    the second-degree child abuse charge should be dismissed.
    -2-
    Following the first preliminary examination, on February 25, 2019, the district court bound
    Dubois over on the charges of first- and second-degree child abuse.
    Austin died on May 20, 2019 from nasopharyngeal chordoma and dysphagia, both of which
    were complications from his cancer. Thereafter, the prosecution moved to amend its complaint
    and information to include one count of first-degree felony murder, MCL 750.316(1)(b), and one
    count of second-degree murder, MCL 750.317. The circuit court entered an order remanding the
    matter to the district court for a continued preliminary examination on the new charges.
    At the continued preliminary examination, one of Austin’s treating physicians testified.
    She explained that Austin had been diagnosed with malnutrition and chordoma. She estimated
    that the chance of survival for chordoma was approximately 70 to 80 percent and that time was of
    the essence in treating chordoma. The physician testified that Austin’s chordoma was “massive.”
    She explained that when Austin’s second surgery was delayed due to his malnourishment, the
    tumor continued to grow, which further diminished his chances for survival. The physician stated
    that she could not say “with complete certainty” whether starting treatment a few weeks earlier
    would have made a difference. Yet, she clarified that there would “certainly” have been a
    difference in Austin’s chance of survival if he had received treatment months earlier. She
    specifically noted that treatment following the onset of his symptoms would have led to the greatest
    chance of survival. She also opined that if the surgery had been done months earlier, Austin would
    have lived longer.
    Following the continued preliminary examination, the district court bound Dubois over for
    trial on the second-degree murder charge, but not the felony-murder charge. The district court did
    not explain its reasoning. In response, the prosecution again moved in the circuit court to amend
    its complaint and information to include a felony-murder charge. The prosecution argued that,
    given the evidence presented at the preliminary examination, and given the court’s decision to bind
    Dubois over for trial on first-degree child abuse and second-degree murder, the district court
    necessarily abused its discretion in refusing to bind Dubois over on the felony-murder charge. The
    circuit court disagreed that the district court had abused its discretion, so it denied the prosecution’s
    motion.
    II. BINDOVER
    A. STANDARD OF REVIEW
    The prosecution argues that the district court erred as a matter of law in refusing to bind
    Dubois over on the felony-murder charge. To bind a defendant over on a charge, the prosecution
    “must establish probable cause, which requires a quantum of evidence sufficient to cause a person
    of ordinary prudence and caution to conscientiously entertain a reasonable belief of the accused’s
    guilt on each element of the crime charged.” People v Yamat, 
    475 Mich 49
    , 52; 714 NW2d 335
    (2006) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “A district court’s decision declining to bind a
    defendant over is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” 
    Id.
     A circuit court’s review of a district
    court’s bind over decision is reviewed de novo “to determine whether the district court abused its
    discretion.” People v Crippen, 
    242 Mich App 278
    , 281-282; 617 NW2d 760 (2000).
    -3-
    B. ANALYSIS
    “If it shall appear to the magistrate at the conclusion of the preliminary examination that a
    felony has been committed and there is probable cause for charging the defendant therewith, the
    magistrate shall forthwith bind the defendant” over to circuit court. People v Mason, 
    247 Mich App 64
    , 71; 634 NW2d 382 (2001), citing MCL 766.13. “The elements of felony murder are (1)
    the killing of a human being, (2) with the intent to kill, to do great bodily harm, or to create a very
    high risk of death or great bodily harm with knowledge that death or great bodily harm was the
    probable result, (3) while committing, attempting to commit, or assisting in the commission of any
    of the felonies specifically enumerated in MCL 750.316(1)(b).” People v Gayheart, 
    285 Mich App 202
    , 210; 776 NW2d 330 (2009). First-degree child abuse is a felony specifically enumerated
    by MCL 750.316(1)(b). Further, “felony murder is essentially second-degree murder, elevated by
    one of the felonies enumerated in MCL 750.316.” People v Maynor, 
    256 Mich App 238
    , 243-244;
    662 NW2d 468 (2003), aff’d 
    470 Mich 289
     (2004).
    Here, the district court found probable cause to believe that Dubois was guilty of first-
    degree child abuse and second-degree murder. By binding Dubois over on a second-degree murder
    charge, the district court necessarily found probable cause that Dubois caused Austin’s death and
    that she acted with malice when she did so. Consequently, as it relates to the felony-murder charge,
    the court also should have found probable cause that the first and second elements were satisfied,
    i.e., that Dubois acted with malice when she caused Austin’s death. By binding Dubois over on
    the first-degree child abuse charge, the court necessarily found probable cause that Dubois
    knowingly and intentionally caused serious physical or mental harm to Austin. See People v
    Gould, 
    255 Mich App 79
    , 87; 750 NW2d 140 (1997). The facts supporting the first-degree child
    abuse charge and the facts supporting the second-degree murder charge are essentially identical.
    The new evidence at the continued preliminary examination was that Austin had died because of
    Dubois’s actions that had led to the court’s finding of probable cause to support a charge of first-
    degree child abuse. The court also found that Dubois had caused Austin’s death. Because the only
    basis for that finding was Dubois’s failure to seek medical attention for Austin, the court
    necessarily found that there was probable cause that Dubois acted with malice when she killed
    Austin and that his death occurred as a result of first-degree child abuse. Thus, the failure to bind
    Dubois over on a felony-murder charge was an abuse of discretion. See People v Plunkett, 
    485 Mich 50
    , 61; 780 NW2d 280 (2010) (“A bindover is required when probable cause exists to support
    each of the elements of a crime.”). Moreover, because the district court abused its discretion by
    failing to bind Dubois over for trial on the felon-murder charge, the circuit court erred by failing
    to grant the prosecution’s motion to amend the complaint and information to add a felony-murder
    charge.
    We are not persuaded by Dubois’s argument on appeal that there was no evidence that the
    first-degree child abuse was the cause of Austin’s death. Indeed, that argument is directly refuted
    by the record. The physician testified that the survival rate for chordoma was 70 to 80 percent.
    She opined that if treatment had been received when Austin started experiencing symptoms, he
    would have had a greater chance of survival. She also testified that he would “certainly” have had
    a greater chance of survival if he had started treatment months earlier. She also explained that
    Austin’s malnourishment meant that the second surgery had to be delayed and that, during the
    delay, his tumor grew. Austin was malnourished because between July 2016 and January 2017,
    -4-
    he was unable to eat. Dubois, despite being told of that fact, refused to take him to a doctor.3 On
    this record, there is simply no support for Dubois’s argument that there was no evidence of
    causation. Indeed, the court found as much when it bound Dubois over on the second-degree
    murder charge.4
    Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not
    retain jurisdiction.
    /s/ Michael J. Kelly
    /s/ Christopher M. Murray
    /s/ Stephen L. Borrello
    3
    Given that Austin was 5’9” and weighed approximately 86 pounds as of December 2016, it is
    reasonable to infer that, in addition to being told that Austin could not eat, she was aware of the
    decline in his physical condition related to his inability to eat.
    4
    On appeal, Dubois notes that there was a gap of 2 ½ years between when she failed to provide
    medical treatment to Austin and when he died. She also directs this testimony to the physician’s
    testimony indicating that she could not say for certain whether treatment provided weeks earlier
    would have resulted in a greater chance of survival. Additionally, Dubois notes that because of
    the location and size of the tumor, Austin had a poor prognosis. The district court could have
    relied upon that testimony to find that Dubois did not cause Austin’s death. It did not do so,
    however. Instead, by binding Dubois over on the second-degree murder charge, it found probable
    cause to support a finding that Dubois had caused Austin’s death. The reviewing court is not
    entitled to substitute its judgment for that the district court. See Crippen, 242 Mich App at 281-
    282.
    -5-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 359816

Filed Date: 7/28/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 7/29/2022