Quashing the bindover & dismissing the case; Making a false or misleading statement to a peace officer; MCL 750.479c(1)(b); People v Williams

The court affirmed the circuit court’s decision quashing the bindover on counts of making a false or misleading statement to a peace officer and dismissing defendant’s felony information, holding that “the evidence was insufficient for a person of ordinary prudence and caution to conscientiously entertain a reasonable belief that defendant made a false or misleading statement[.]” The prosecution claimed that she knowingly and willfully made false or misleading statements as to whether, before the 2016 media reporting on Larry “Nassar’s misconduct, defendant (1) knew that Nassar was the sports medicine doctor under review in 2014 and (2) knew the nature of the allegation or the substance of the review. These two allegedly false or misleading statements formed the basis for four charged offenses under MCL 750.479c because the officers were investigating both” CSC I and misconduct of a public official. The prosecution maintained that “the evidence and inferences from that evidence show that defendant was informed in 2014 of Nassar’s name and the nature of the allegations against him. However, the prosecution did not introduce any evidence that defendant was actually informed in 2014, or at any time prior to 2016 of Nassar’s name or the details of the allegations against him.” The court held that the prosecution did not present evidence “that defendant was actually apprised of the details of the allegations or complaint against Nassar in 2014 until after Nassar’s misconduct garnered national media attention in 2016.” On this record, it could not “say that defendant’s statements during the 2018 police interview were affirmatively false or misled law enforcement in this regard.” Absent evidence that she “was provided with Nassar’s name or details about the nature and substance of the allegations in 2014, there was no evidence that defendant’s 2018 statements to the police were affirmatively false or misleading as required by the statute.” The prosecution essentially claimed that she “made false or misleading statements because [witness-R] must have provided more details to defendant considering the seriousness of the allegations and the amount of information” R possessed. But that conclusion was not supported by the evidence and instead rested “on mere speculation and suspicion.” Given the evidence presented, “the district court abused its discretion by finding that there was probable cause of this element of the crime and by instead binding defendant over for trial based on mere speculation.”