PEOPLE OF MI V MARK ANTHONY COULIER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
March 3, 2011
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 295920
Oceana Circuit Court
LC No. 09-007571-FC
MARK ANTHONY COULIER,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: SAAD, P.J., and K. F. KELLY and DONOFRIO, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion to
quash the information and dismiss the case. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
This appeal has been decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
I. BASIC FACTS & PROCEDURE
Defendant was charged with open murder, MCL 750.318, in connection with the death of
his wife, Joyce Coulier (the victim). Dr. Alan Start, a forensic pathologist, performed an autopsy
on the victim on August 29, 2000, and testified as an expert witness during the preliminary
examination. Dr. Start opined that the cause of death was homicide by unspecified means. He
considered the autopsy report, toxicology report, microscopic tissue examinations, information
about the victim’s history, where and how the victim’s body was found, and information from
the police. Dr. Start found no evidence of accidental or natural death.
The victim’s body was found partially buried in a shallow grave in a woodsy area with
trees and undergrowth. Her body was covered with sticks, leaves, and dirt; a wooden box
covered her feet. Only two to three inches of soil and debris covered her body, and her head and
right arm were exposed. The victim’s white Nike tennis shoes were found between her legs.
Shovel marks surrounded the body. The victim’s body was discovered 100 to 200 feet behind an
apartment building where defendant’s sister, Ethel (Ann) Buchner, lived with Nathan Ollis, and
where defendant and the victim were staying at the time of the victim’s disappearance. The state
of the victim’s body at the time of its discovery was consistent with death occurring one month
earlier.
Several witnesses testified that the victim and defendant had a violent relationship, and
that defendant physically abused the victim. The abuse included smacking, hitting, hair pulling,
and dragging. Witnesses also testified that defendant threatened to kill the victim on several
-1-
occasions, particularly after physically abusing her. A witness testified that during one fight, the
victim had threatened to leave and take the children with her and defendant said, “if I ever see
you with another man; you leave me, I’ll kill ya.”
The last time any witness saw the victim was the night of July 29, 2000, and the early
morning hours of July 30, 2000, when defendant, the victim, Jeri Talmadge, and Matt Smith
went out to celebrate the victim’s birthday. The group began drinking and unsuccessfully sought
to find drugs. Defendant and the victim argued because defendant wanted to go home and the
victim wanted to continue partying. Defendant also wanted to get back together with the victim,
but the victim did not want to reconcile. According to Talmadge, the victim was dating a man
known as “Steve” at the time, and Talmadge believed that defendant knew the victim was seeing
someone else.
The group arrived at Talmadge’s house after 3:00 a.m. Defendant and the victim stayed
for 20 to 30 minutes, and then walked the five-minute walk back to Buchner and Ollis’s
apartment. Buchner was a very clean person, and she would post signs instructing people to take
off their shoes before coming inside. Defendant and the victim arrived at the apartment in the
early hours of July 29, 2000. Ollis remained in bed, but he could hear the victim say she was
going to go and call someone for a ride so she could continue celebrating her birthday, or that
she was going to go back to Smith and Talmadge’s where there was beer. Ollis testified that as
soon as the victim left, defendant said, “you know Ann, I’m done chasing the fuckin’ bitch.”
Around 5:00 a.m. or 6:00 a.m. the next morning, Ollis found defendant lying on the couch in the
living room.
Durward Wilson, a friend of defendant, had a conversation with defendant during the
weekend of the victim’s disappearance. Wilson noticed scratches on defendant’s face, and
defendant told him the scratches resulted from a fight he had with the victim the previous night.
Defendant told Wilson that he picked the victim up from behind in a bear hug hold and put his
hand over her face in order to “shut her up” and get her outside the apartment. Defendant also
told Wilson that if defendant did not get away from the victim, he would end up killing her.
According to Wilson, the way defendant said this made him think that defendant had already
murdered the victim.
On August 28, 2000, Ollis went searching for his missing shovel. He found the shovel in
the wooded lot behind the apartment, and as he bent down, he saw a skeletal face, which was
later determined to be the victim’s body. Ollis and Buchner turned in the victim’s wallet and
other personal items they found in their bedroom closet.
The district court bound defendant over for trial, finding probable cause to believe that
defendant murdered the victim. The trial court granted defendant’s motion to quash the
information, concluding that other than the testimony regarding defendant’s character and the
relationship defendant had with the victim, there was no fact to show the death was a homicide.
Subsequently, the trial court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the case. Plaintiff now
appeals.
II. MOTION TO QUASH
-2-
Plaintiff argues that the evidence presented at the preliminary examination established
probable cause to believe that a homicide was committed and that defendant committed that
homicide. Therefore, a bindover was warranted, and the trial court erred by quashing the
information. We agree.
We review de novo a magistrate’s decision to bind over a defendant to determine whether
the magistrate abused his discretion. People v Plunkett, 485 Mich 50, 57; 780 NW2d 280
(2010). Moreover, we review a circuit court’s decision regarding whether to quash a bindover to
see if it was consistent with the district court’s exercise of discretion; a circuit court’s decision to
quash a bindover will be upheld if the district court abused its discretion. People v Hudson, 241
Mich App 268, 276; 615 NW2d 784 (2000). “An abuse of discretion occurs when the court
chooses an outcome that falls outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.” People
v Unger, 278 Mich App 210, 217; 749 NW2d 272 (2008).
The purpose of the preliminary examination is to establish whether probable cause exists
to bind the defendant over for trial. Plunkett, 485 Mich at 57. The prosecutor must show that “‘a
crime has been committed’ and that ‘there is probable cause to believe the defendant committed
it.’” People v Baugh, 243 Mich App 1, 5; 620 NW2d 653 (2000), quoting People v Johnson, 427
Mich 98, 104-105; 398 NW2d 219 (1986). In order to establish probable cause, there must be
evidence “‘sufficient to cause a person of ordinary prudence and caution to conscientiously
entertain a reasonable belief’ of the accused's guilt.” People v Yost, 468 Mich 122, 126; 659
NW2d 604 (2003), quoting People v Justice (After Remand), 454 Mich 334, 344; 562 NW2d 652
(1997).
Open murder is a charge of murder without a specific degree; a defendant can ultimately
be found guilty of either first or second-degree murder. MCL 750.318; People v Watkins, 247
Mich App 14, 20; 634 NW2d 370 (2001). If the defendant pleads guilty, the trial court
determines the degree of murder after hearing witness testimony. Id. at 20-21. If the defendant
is found guilty by a jury, the jury determines the degree of murder. Id. at 20. Some evidence of
each element of the offense must typically be shown in order to bind a defendant over for trial.
People v Henderson, 282 Mich App 307, 312; 765 NW2d 619 (2009). However, for a charge of
open murder, evidence of premeditation and deliberation is not necessary to establish probable
cause at the preliminary examination. Baugh, 243 Mich App at 7.
In order to bind over a defendant, “circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences
arising from the evidence are sufficient[.]” People v Maynor, 256 Mich App 238, 245; 662
NW2d 468 (2003) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted). Should the “evidence
conflict[] or raise[] a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt[,]” the issue ought to be left for a
jury to decide. People v Goecke, 457 Mich 442, 469-470; 579 NW2d 868 (1998).
The evidence presented at the preliminary examination established probable cause to
believe that a homicide was committed. Dr. Start’s provided expert testimony opinion that the
cause of death was homicide by unspecified means. The body was intentionally concealed,
making it more probable that the death occurred by murder and less probable that the death
occurred by other means.
The prosecution further presented evidence to establish probable cause that defendant
committed the murder. A month after the victim’s disappearance, while looking for his missing
-3-
shovel, Ollis found the victim’s skeleton partially buried in the wooded area behind his
apartment, approximately 100 to 200 feet from his apartment where defendant and the victim
were staying at the time she disappeared. Several witnesses testified about the violent nature of
the relationship and abusive history between the victim and defendant. Moreover, witnesses
testified that defendant and the victim were arguing the night of her disappearance; specifically
defendant wanted to reestablish their relationship and the victim did not. The hurried appearance
of the burial is consistent with the 3:30 a.m. to approximately 5:30 a.m. time frame when
defendant and the victim came into the apartment until the time Ollis found defendant on the
couch; defendant had the opportunity to kill the victim during this period. The evidence that
Buchner put up signs instructing people to take their shoes off, that the victim’s white Nike
tennis shoes were found between her legs, and that the body was found between 100 and 200 feet
from the apartment provides support for a finding of probable cause to believe that defendant
dragged the victim out of the apartment, consistent with Wilson’s testimony regarding a struggle.
Wilson’s testimony further shows that the couple had been in an argument, possibly the
night the victim disappeared, and offered evidence of a physical struggle between the two.
While there is a conflict regarding which day this conversation took place, the day of or the day
before the victim’s disappearance, this discrepancy is a question of fact for a jury to resolve.
Goecke, 456 Mich at 469-470.
Although there was no direct evidence that defendant murdered the victim, as discussed
above, there was significant circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to
find probable cause to believe that a homicide occurred and that the defendant committed it.
Maynor, 256 Mich App at 245. The district court did not abuse its discretion in binding this case
over to the trial court for trial. As a result, the trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion to
quash the information and dismissing this case.
We reverse the trial court’s order granting the motion to quash the information, and
remand this case to the trial court with instructions to reinstate the charge against defendant. We
do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
/s/ Pat M. Donofrio
-4-
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.
