-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

UNPUBLISHED

February 15, 2018

v No. 335619

Wayne Circuit Court

SHAUN MOORE, LC No. 16-006139-01-FC

Defendant-Appellee.

Before: TALBOT, C.J., and METER and TUKEL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The prosecution appeals as of right the circuit court’s order granting defendant’s motion 

to quash his bindover for trial on the charge of felony murder, MCL 750.316(1)(b). We reverse 

and remand for reinstatement of the charge.

The felony-murder charge against defendant arose after his child died in January 2016, 

more than 12 years after she was taken to the hospital in September 2003, when she was only six 

months old, having suffered serious brain injuries after being in defendant’s sole care and 

custody overnight. As a result of the serious injuries she sustained as an infant, the child never 

resumed a normal life, requiring 24-hour care for more than 12 years until her death in 2016. 

Defendant was charged and convicted of first-degree child abuse in 2003 stemming from the 

incident, for which he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. After the child, then 12 years 

old, died in 2016, the prosecution charged defendant with felony murder, with the underlying 

predicate felony being first-degree child abuse, MCL 750.136b(2). 

Following the preliminary examination, the district court bound defendant over for trial 

on the felony-murder charge, finding that he intentionally inflicted the injuries on the child in 

2003 and that the child ultimately succumbed to those injuries when she died in 2016. The 

circuit court, upon defendant’s motion, quashed the bindover, concluding that the evidence was 

not sufficient to establish probable cause that the child’s death was a murder. 

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

During the afternoon or evening of September 25, 2003, defendant picked up the child

and her twin, who were six months old, from their mother’s home and took them to his 

apartment overnight to babysit while the mother went job hunting the next day. This was the 

first and only time that defendant had the child in his care by himself, but the mother felt 
-2-

comfortable allowing him to watch the child because she had observed his past interactions with 

the child, which she agreed had been “good.” By all accounts, the child was normal and without 

injury when defendant picked her up from the mother’s home. 

The next afternoon or evening, the child was taken to the hospital unconscious, having 

sustained serious brain injuries, including subdural hemorrhaging (bleeding between the skull 

and the covering of the brain), subarachnoid hemorrhaging (bleeding over the surface of the 

brain), contusions (bruising from bleeding within the brain tissue itself), and retinal 

hemorrhaging (bleeding in the eyes). Blood of differing ages was present on the child’s brain 

and in her eyes. As a result of her injuries, the child required 24-hour care for the remainder of 

her life.

Defendant told the mother that that he was giving the child a bath and he tripped over a 

cord and dropped her on the floor. The next day, after speaking with doctors, the mother asked 

defendant about the incident again, and defendant again told her that he gave the child a bath, 

tripped over a cord, and accidently dropped her, but added that he “shook her . . . to revive her”

because she went “limp.” Defendant also gave a police statement in 2003, and it was read at the 

preliminary examination. In the statement, he admitted that he repeatedly shook and “wiggled”

the child in an attempt to revive her after she fell when he tripped over a cord and she appeared

“dazed[.]” He stated that he shook the child for approximately 15 seconds before he called 911,

for approximately 10 seconds after, and about two or three times before the ambulance arrived. 

He stated that the child went “limp” after he shook her and admitted that his shake was “more 

than a playful shake” and that he may have caused the child’s injuries by shaking her “too hard 

or too long.”

On January 10, 2016, over 12 years after the child sustained her brain injuries in 2003,

the mother, who provided 24-hour care for the child, noticed that the child had a fever. The 

child’s fever broke and the mother remained with the child, checking on her throughout the 

evening. The next morning, the child made a breathing sound and the mother noticed that her 

“eyes had popped open and they were looking gloomy.” The mother felt the child and observed 

that she did not have a fever, but it looked like she was not breathing. The mother could not hear 

a heartbeat with a stethoscope and began administering CPR and called 911. The child could not

be revived at the hospital and was declared dead.

As indicated by the autopsy report, which was admitted into evidence at the preliminary 

examination over defendant’s objection, the medical examiner, who did not testify at the 

examination, concluded that the child’s final diagnosis and cause of death was “[r]emote cerebral 

trauma” and the manner of death was “homicide.” The examiner further noted in his report that 

there were “multiple cerebral peritoneal drains present,” her abdomen contained a feeding tube, 

there was an endotracheal tube in place, and there was an intravenous line present. Further, her 

brain displayed “cystic loss of the left frontoparietal portion of the brain” and there was “a 

similar area covering the area aspect of both frontal poles and a similar aspect is identified on the 

right temporal pole.” Additionally, the report noted that the child’s lungs were “somewhat 

collapsed and [felt] consolidated in their interior lobes,” and microscopic examination indicated 

“lung-pneumonia.” 
-3-

Dr. Holly Gilmer, the pediatric neurosurgeon who treated the child in the hospital in 

2003, testified at the preliminary examination regarding the extent and nature of the injuries the 

child sustained.1 She opined that the child’s injuries were “definitely inflicted injuries” caused 

by trauma, meaning that someone injured the child, and that the injuries were not accidental and 

probably involved “a mechanism of shaking and impact.” Specifically, Dr. Gilmer opined:

The pattern of injuries was complete with shaken impact syndrome or 

nonaccidental injury. Usually there’s a mechanism of shaking of the baby. 

Usually there’s an impact, too, in which the baby is slammed against a surface or 

thrown. The surface does not have to be hard for the baby to have significant 

injury to the brain. 

Dr. Gilmer further testified that a six-month-old baby could not have accidentally inflicted these 

types of injuries on both sides of the brain and in the eyes. According to Dr. Gilmer, there was 

no possibility that an accident could have caused the injuries because an accidental fall of a baby 

would result in a local injury or “more focal injury,” i.e., an injury in one spot, at the point where 

the baby hits his or her head, and is not generally associated with the retinal hemorrhaging on 

both sides and the “diffused injuries with bleeding on both sides of her brain” present in this

case. Additionally, Dr. Gilmer explained that an accidental fall would result in a “one-time

injury” and blood of differing ages would not be present, yet blood of different ages was present 

in the child’s eyes and her brain, indicating that she sustained multiple injuries that did not all 

occur at the same time.

Dr. Gilmer could not specifically recall “which blood was which age” in regards to the 

child’s injuries, but testified that the injuries occurred “[g]enerally days” apart, as opposed to 

seconds, minutes, or hours apart.2 Regarding the subdural hemorrhaging, Dr. Gilmer recalled 

that “some of the blood was fresh within a few hours; some of it was within 24 hours; and then 

some of it might have been as old as 72 hours” from the time of the child’s examination. Dr. 

Gilmer’s inability during her testimony to recall the timing of the subarachnoid bleeding or the 

contusions3 or to recall “which blood was which age” did not affect her opinion that the child

was intentionally injured, as opposed to accidentally injured, because the differing ages of blood 

present in her eyes and brain indicated multiple injuries that did not occur at one time. 

Additionally, according to Dr. Gilmer, a child who sustained these types of injuries would show 

symptoms “[r]ight away.” Dr. Gilmer could not recall if the child presented with any external 

injuries, but testified that a lack of external injury is not uncommon if the “whole mechanism” is 

violent shaking or involves impact against a soft surface.

 1 The court qualified Dr. Gilmer as an expert in pediatric neurosurgery. 

2 Dr. Gilmer testified that she could not say 13 years later “which blood was which age” but

stated that there is “documentation that the blood was of different signal intensity from the 

imaging studies that goes along with different ages.”

3 Dr. Gilmer testified that she would need to refer to the radiology reports to ascertain the timing 

of those injuries. 
-4-

Dr. Gilmer further opined that, if someone was attempting to revive a child by shaking 

and wiggling the child back and forth, such acts could not have caused injuries of the nature that 

the child sustained because her injuries were of differing ages that did not all occur at the same 

time. Moreover, although it was possible that the presence of blood of different ages could result 

if there was more than one attempt to revive a child with violent shaking, such attempts would 

have had to occur on different days, as opposed to seconds, minutes, or hours apart. Dr. Gilmer 

also testified that the injury that caused a subdural hemorrhage could have “possibly” occurred as 

far as 72 hours before the time of the examination given the age of the blood, but she did not 

know if her memory was “that good.” According to Dr. Gilmer, a subdural hemorrhage, by 

itself, could be caused by an accident, such as a child falling off of a surface located two or three 

feet above the floor and hitting her head, and the bleeding over the surface of the brain, which 

was different from a subdural hemorrhage, could also result from an accident, but it would be a 

“very high velocity accident[.]” She stated that it takes “a very great [im]pact to disrupt the 

blood vessels in the subarachnoid.” 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

“A district court’s decision to bind a defendant over for trial will not be disturbed absent 

an abuse of discretion.” People v Green, 260 Mich App 710, 713; 680 NW2d 477 (2004). “On 

review, the circuit court is limited to the entire record of the preliminary examination and may 

not substitute its judgment for that of the district court.” Id. at 713-714. “The circuit court may 

reverse the district court decision only if there appears to be an abuse of discretion.” Id. at 714. 

“This Court, in turn, reviews the circuit court’s decision de novo to determine if the district court 

abused its discretion.” Id. “Because the legal issue presented is whether the magistrate abused 

his or her discretion, this Court gives no deference to the circuit court’s decision regarding a 

motion to quash a bindover order.” People v Harlan, 258 Mich App 137, 145; 669 NW2d 872 

(2003). Accordingly, “[t]his Court reviews for an abuse of discretion the district court’s decision 

whether to bind a defendant over for trial.” Id.; see also People v Feeley, 499 Mich 429, 434; 

885 NW2d 223 (2016). “An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision falls 

outside the range of principled outcomes.” People v Seewald, 499 Mich 111, 116; 879 NW2d 

237 (2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

III. ANALYSIS

The prosecution argues that the evidence presented at the preliminary examination was 

sufficient to establish probable cause that defendant committed felony murder and that a 

bindover was warranted. 

“[T]he preliminary examination has a dual function, i.e., to determine whether a felony 

was committed and whether there is probable cause to believe the defendant committed it.” 

People v Yost, 468 Mich 122, 125-126; 659 NW2d 604 (2003). “The district court must bind the 

defendant over for trial if, at the conclusion of the preliminary examination, the district court 

finds ‘probable cause’ to believe that the defendant committed the crime.” People v Orzame, 

224 Mich App 551, 558; 570 NW2d 118 (1997); see also MCL 766.13 and MCR 6.110(E). 

“Probable cause 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.” 

Yost, 468 Mich at 126, quoting People v Justice (After Remand), 454 Mich 334, 344; 562 NW2d 
-5-

652 (1997). “This probable cause standard is not a very demanding threshold,” Harlan, 258 

Mich App at 145, and the quantum of evidence required to bind a defendant over for trial is 

“much lower” than that necessary to establish that a defendant committed the crime beyond a 

reasonable doubt, People v Greene, 255 Mich App 426, 443-444; 661 NW2d 616 (2003). 

Despite the “rather low level of proof” required to establish probable cause, the 

prosecution must present “some evidence with respect to each element of the offense charged, or 

evidence from which the elements may be inferred.” Harlan, 258 Mich App at 145 (quotation 

marks and citation omitted). Circumstantial evidence and the reasonable inferences drawn from 

the evidence can be sufficient to establish probable cause to believe a crime was committed and 

that the defendant committed it. Id. at 147; Greene, 255 Mich App at 444. Further, “[i]f the 

evidence introduced at the preliminary examination conflicts or raises a reasonable doubt about 

the defendant’s guilt, the magistrate must let the factfinder at trial resolve those questions of fact. 

This requires binding the defendant over for trial.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). 

“In other words, the magistrate may not weigh the evidence to determine the likelihood of 

conviction, but must restrict his or her attention to whether there is evidence regarding each of 

the elements of the offenses, after examining the whole matter.” Id. (quotation marks and 

citations omitted). “Resolution of this issue essentially involves the determination whether the 

evidence presented to the district court was sufficient to establish, as a matter of law, that the 

offense charged probably had been committed by the defendant.” People v Flowers, 191 Mich 

App 169, 174; 477 NW2d 473 (1991). 

“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). The charge of felony murder against defendant was based on the underlying 

predicate felony of first-degree child abuse, which is specifically enumerated under MCL 

750.316(1)(b). Thus, in order to have defendant bound over for trial on the charge of felony 

murder in the present case, the prosecution must have presented some evidence that defendant 

committed second-degree murder and did so during the commission of first-degree child abuse. 

People v Aaron, 409 Mich 672, 728; 299 NW2d 304 (1980); Flowers, 191 Mich App at 174-177. 

A. THE KILLING OF THE CHILD

First, we find that the evidence was sufficient to create the reasonable inference that a 

killing occurred in this case. Gayheart, 285 Mich App at 210. Dr. Gilmer’s testimony indicated

that the child’s serious brain injuries she sustained as an infant were nonaccidental and 

intentionally inflicted. The mother’s testimony that the child required 24-hour care afterward,

until her death, indicates that the child never fully recovered from her injuries so she could 

resume a normal life, but continued to languish from the injuries at the time of her death. The 

medical examiner’s conclusions in the autopsy report that the child’s final diagnosis and cause of 

death was “remote cerebral trauma” and her manner of death was “homicide” create the 

reasonable inference that the child’s serious brain injuries she sustained as an infant ultimately 

caused her death over 12 years later. We agree with the district court that the evidence 

sufficiently supported the inference that the child finally succumbed to the serious brain injuries 
-6-

inflicted upon her in 2003 and that the manner of her death was homicide. A person of ordinary 

prudence and caution could entertain a reasonable belief from the evidence and the reasonable 

inferences from it that the intentional acts inflicted on the child when she was an infant 

ultimately caused her death, and thus, that a killing occurred in this case. Yost, 468 Mich at 126;

Gayheart, 285 Mich App at 210. 

We recognize, as defendant asserts, that there was clearly a lengthy period between the

child’s injuries and her death, that the child had a fever during the evening before she stopped 

breathing, and that the autopsy report indicated that her lungs were “somewhat collapsed” and 

she had pneumonia in her lungs at the time of her death. However, the medical examiner’s 

conclusion that the child’s final diagnosis and cause of death was “remote brain trauma” supports 

the reasonable inference from the evidence that her death was the “natural and probable 

consequence,” i.e., a foreseeable result, of the serious brain injuries intentionally inflicted upon 

her in 2003, especially in light of the fact that she never resumed a normal life following her 

injuries and required 24-hour care until her death. People v Bowles, 234 Mich App 345, 349-

350; 594 NW2d 100 (1999), aff’d 461 Mich 555 (2000). While a murder conviction cannot rest 

on uncertain medical speculation concerning the cause of death, People v Stevenson, 416 Mich 

383, 392-393; 331 NW2d 143 (1982), the child’s cause of death in the instant case was based on 

the medical examiner’s determination and not speculation. Further, although the evidence may 

conflict regarding the child’s final condition, “[i]f the evidence introduced at the preliminary 

examination conflicts or raises a reasonable doubt about the defendant’s guilt, the magistrate 

must let the factfinder at trial resolve those questions of fact.” Greene, 255 Mich App at 444

(quotation marks and citations omitted). Additionally, the Michigan Supreme Court has 

recognized that, if proximate causation can be established beyond a reasonable doubt, a murder 

conviction is warranted whether the charges are brought 5, 10, or even 20 years after the injury. 

Stevenson, 416 Mich at 392-394 (abrogating the “year and a day” rule, which required that the 

victim must have died within a year and a day of an assault to bring murder charges and 

recognizing that there is no statute of limitations for murder).

Next, we find that, contrary to defendant’s argument, the evidence was sufficient to 

support the reasonable inference that defendant committed the intentional acts that caused the 

child’s serious injuries that ultimately killed her. The evidence indicates that defendant picked 

the six-month-old child up from the mother’s home during the afternoon or early evening of 

September 25, 2003, to care for her overnight while the mother went job hunting the next day. 

By all accounts, when defendant picked up the child, the child was normal and without injury. 

By the following afternoon, September 26, 2003, within 24 hours, the child was hospitalized and 

in a coma, having suffered the serious brain injuries. As noted, Dr. Gilmer, the pediatric 

neurosurgeon who treated the child, opined that the injuries were not accidental, as defendant 

claimed. Significant to Dr. Gilmer’s conclusion that the child’s injuries were intentionally 

inflicted, and not consistent with defendant’s explanation that the injuries resulted from a onetime accidental injury, was the presence of injuries in both sides of the brain and retinal 

hemorrhaging in both eyes, and the findings that blood of differing ages was present in both her 

brain and retinal cavities. Although Dr. Gilmer could not testify definitively at the preliminary 

examination regarding the timing of the child’s brain injuries, she stated that she thought that 

some of the blood from the subdural hemorrhaging was “fresh within a few hours; some of it was 

within 24 hours; and then some of it might have been as old as 72 hours” from the time of the 

child’s examination. Despite the absence of evidence indicating which specific brain injury 
-7-

caused the child’s death, our review of the testimony indicates that the timing of her injuries was

generally consistent with the period that the child was in defendant’s sole care and custody and 

was “ ‘sufficient to cause a person of ordinary prudence and caution to conscientiously entertain 

a reasonable belief’” that defendant committed the acts against the child that caused her serious 

injuries that ultimately led to her death. Yost, 468 Mich at 126, quoting Justice, 454 Mich at 344. 

Testimony indicates that the child was in defendant’s sole care and custody overnight for 

at least 18 hours before her hospitalization with serious brain injuries. By defendant’s account, 

he picked up the child from the mother’s home around 6:00 p.m. and the child fell around noon 

the following day, after which defendant called 911 and she was hospitalized. By the mother’s 

account, the child was in defendant’s care even longer because she testified at one point that he 

picked up the child from her home in the “afternoon” and she was notified that the child was hurt 

and in the hospital in the evening. This timing supports the reasonable inference that the child’s 

injuries, as indicated by the differing ages of the blood (some occurring within a couple of hours 

and some occurring within 24 hours or “days apart”), could have been intentionally inflicted on 

more than one occasion, during the time that the child was in defendant’s sole care and custody. 

Although Dr. Gilmer also testified that some of the blood “might have been as old as 72 hours,”

making it “possible” that a subdural hemorrhage could have occurred at that time, and there was 

no testimony specifically indicating that the child was in defendant’s care or custody 72 hours 

before her hospitalization, Dr. Gilmer also testified that the type of injuries the child suffered 

would manifest “right away” and, by all accounts, the child was acting normal and was without 

injury when defendant picked her up from the mother’s home the prior day. 

Despite the lack of evidence specifically identifying which brain injuries caused the 

child’s death and the lack of definitive timing regarding the injuries, we find that the evidence 

presented was sufficient to create a reasonable inference that the child sustained her serious brain 

injuries, resulting in her need for 24-hour care and ultimately causing her death due to “remote 

brain trauma,” while she was in defendant’s sole care and custody. Thus, there was probable 

cause that defendant’s actions were a “contributory cause that was a substantial factor” in or 

affirmatively contributed to the child’s death. People v Bailey, 451 Mich 657, 676; 549 NW2d 

325, amended 453 Mich 1204 (1996); People v Zak, 184 Mich App 1, 11; 457 NW2d 59 (1990). 

We disagree with defendant’s argument that there was no evidence from which it could be 

inferred that his intentional acts actually caused the injuries that led to her death. 

B. MALICE

Next, we find that the prosecution presented sufficient evidence from which it could be 

inferred that defendant acted with the requisite malice to establish felony murder. The element 

of malice required for statutory felony murder is “the same as that required for second-degree 

murder: the intention to kill, the intention to do great bodily harm, or the wanton and willful 

disregard of the likelihood that the natural tendency of the defendant’s behavior is to cause death 

or great bodily harm.” Flowers, 191 Mich App at 176. “The facts and circumstances of the 

killing may give rise to an inference of malice.” People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 759; 597 

NW2d 130 (1999). “A jury may infer malice from evidence that the defendant intentionally set 

in motion a force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.” Id. We note that, because of the 

difficulty of proving an actor’s state of mind, minimal circumstantial evidence is sufficient. 

People v McGhee, 268 Mich App 600, 623; 709 NW2d 595 (2005). 
-8-

The facts and circumstances gave rise to an inference of malice in this case. From Dr. 

Gilmer’s testimony indicating that the child’s serious brain injuries were not accidental, but were 

intentionally inflicted consistent with a pattern of shaking and with impact occurring on more 

than one occasion, as well as from defendant’s apparent understanding from his police statement 

that shaking the child could cause the child serious injuries,

4 we conclude that sufficient 

evidence existed to create the reasonable inference that defendant “intentionally set in motion a 

force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.” Carines, 460 Mich at 759.5

C. DURING THE COMMISSION OF FIRST-DEGREE CHILD ABUSE

To convict defendant, the prosecution must establish that defendant committed the 

murder in the perpetration of first-degree child abuse. “The elements of first-degree child abuse 

are (1) the person, (2) knowingly or intentionally, (3) causes serious physical or mental harm to a 

child.” People v Gould, 225 Mich App 79, 87; 570 NW2d 140 (1997). The evidence as 

discussed above sufficiently establishes these elements.

IV. CONCLUSION

We conclude that the prosecution presented sufficient evidence at the preliminary 

examination to establish probable cause that defendant committed felony murder. As noted, the 

“probable cause standard is not a very demanding threshold.” Harlan, 258 Mich App at 145. 

The “quantum of evidence” need only be “ ‘sufficient to cause a person of ordinary prudence and 

caution to conscientiously entertain a reasonable belief’ of the accused’s guilt.” Yost, 468 Mich 

at 126, quoting Justice, 454 Mich at 344. It is sufficient to establish probable cause if “the 

prosecutor presents some evidence with respect to each element of the offense charged, or 

evidence from which the elements may be inferred.” Harlan, 258 Mich App at 145 (quotation 

marks and citations omitted). The prosecution presented evidence from which the elements of 

felony murder as well as the underlying predicate felony of first-degree child abuse could be 

inferred, including causation and the requisite intent. Thus, the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in concluding that sufficient evidence supported a bindover for trial on the charge of 

felony murder. Green, 260 Mich App at 713-714; Harlan, 258 Mich App at 145. Accordingly, 

we reverse the circuit court’s order quashing the bindover.

 4 Defendant’s statement to the police reflects, to some extent, his understanding that shaking the 

child could seriously injure her. 

5 Again, defendant argues that the medical testimony could not establish that he possessed the 

requisite intent to murder because the timing of the child’s injuries indicated that the child 

sustained the older injuries, indicative of intentional, non-accidental injury, before she was in his 

care and custody. However, as discussed, Dr. Gilmer’s testimony regarding the timing of the 

child’s injuries, albeit not definitive, was generally consistent with the timing of the child’s 

overnight stay, i.e., “days apart” or “within 24 hours.” 
-9-

Reversed and remanded for reinstatement of the felony-murder charge and for further 

proceedings. We do not retain jurisdiction.

/s/ Michael J. Talbot

/s/ Patrick M. Meter

/s/ Jonathan Tukel