PEOPLE OF MI V NOLAND JOHNSON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
February 24, 2004
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 243655
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 02-008533
NOLAND JOHNSON,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Cooper, P.J., and O’Connell and Fort Hood, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion to quash
the information and dismissing the charges without prejudice. We reverse and remand for
reinstatement of the charges. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to
MCR 7.214(E).
Defendant was charged with two counts of assault with intent to commit murder, MCL
750.83, and one count of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, MCL
750.227b, following a shooting. At the preliminary examination a witness was asked to make an
in-court identification of the person who fired the shots. The witness left the stand and pointed
to a person who was not defendant. At that point defendant, who had been sitting in the
spectator section of the courtroom, moved forward to take a seat at the defense table. In
response to the prosecutor’s inquiries, the witness then recanted his initial identification and
stated that defendant was the perpetrator. The victim was unable to identify the person who shot
him. The district court bound defendant over as charged, concluding that the contradictions in
the witness’s identification testimony should be resolved by the trier of fact.
In the trial court, defendant moved to quash the information on the ground that the
witness could not provide an independent in-court identification of the perpetrator at the
preliminary examination. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the case without
prejudice, concluding that the district court abused its discretion by binding defendant over for
trial.
The purpose of a preliminary examination is to determine if probable cause exists to
believe that a crime was committed and that the defendant committed it. MCL 766.13; MCR
6.110(E). During a preliminary examination, the prosecutor is not required to prove the
defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the prosecutor must produce “evidence
-1-
of each element of the crime charged, or evidence from which the elements may be inferred.”
People v Hill, 433 Mich 464, 469; 446 NW2d 140 (1989). A magistrate should not discharge a
defendant if the evidence conflicts or raises a reasonable doubt of guilt. Such questions should
be left for the jury. People v Drake, 246 Mich App 637, 640; 633 NW2d 469 (2001). The
decision to discharge or bind over a defendant is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. People v
Thomas, 438 Mich 448, 452; 475 NW2d 288 (1991). The trial court may not substitute its
judgment for that of the district court. Drake, supra, 639-640. We review de novo a trial court’s
decision that the district court abused its discretion. People v Orzame, 224 Mich App 551, 557;
570 NW2d 118 (1997).
We reverse the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion to quash the information
and dismissing the case, and remand with instructions to reinstate the charges against defendant.
The witness’s identification testimony was not strong, and was contradictory in some respects.
Nevertheless, the district court correctly concluded that such contradictions were for the jury to
resolve, and that dismissal was not warranted simply because the evidence raised some doubt.
Drake, supra, at 640. The trial court erred in substituting its judgment for that of the district
court, id. at 639-640, and in concluding that the district court abused its discretion by binding
defendant over for trial. Thomas, supra; Orzame, supra.
Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
