STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE 10™ DISTRICT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF CALHOUN PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Honorable Paul Beardslee Plaintiff, Case No. C17 -10355 FY Vs. OLIVER PAIGE, Defendant. aE Ee, DAVID GILBERT (P41934) JUSTIN D, McCARTHY (P59730) Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney for Defendant OPINION and ORDER The Preliminary Examination in this case began December 11, 2017 at which time the Court received testimony from William Norment, Derek Brooks and Detective Stephanie Estree. Mr. Norment testified that during the late afternoon hours on some date prior to the 11th of June, 2016 he had encountered the victim in this case Liza Haney-Nelson, Ms. Haney-Nelson and he went to a convenience store then walked back to her home. Upon entering the home, Norment related, he and the victim were surprised to discover the Defendant naked inside the residence. An argument ensued between the victim and the Defendant, during which the victim wielded a large knife. Following the argument Mr. Norment had the impression that the victim and the Defendant were smoking some illicit substance together, after which the victim advised Norment that because her boyfriend (the Defendant) was uncomfortable with Norment’s presence, Norment should leave. He departed. Norment returned to the vicinity a few days later in the evening and slept in an apartment on the second floor of the same building where the victim lived. Twice in the wee hours of the night Mr. Norment was awakened by the sounds of an argument coming from the victim’s residence. Norment did not identify the voices he heard, Norment went back to sleep. The next morning he knocked at the victim’s door but received no response. He noted that the television screen was blue, as if not receiving a signal. These conditions continued over the next several days as Norment would knock at the door and see no activity and always the blue TV screen.Peres testified that he has known the Defendant for many years and that on a nigt Ser eee June, 2016 the Defendant and others had been at Brooks’ residence. Brooks sai a a . et had blood on his pants. Brooks testified to his belief that the blood cam nee e 7 fendant’s hands, but he acknowledged that he saw no cuts or abrasions on th efendant’s hands as depicted in photographs taken contemporaneously but that he had seer what appeared to be bite marks on the Defendant’s hands. Mr. Brooks also testified that th¢ Defendant did not want to depart Mr. Brooks’ residence because he had previously been in ar argument with the victim. Also the Defendant had made comments about his hope that he Wouldn’t have to hit the victim on her head with a frying pan. Mr. Brooks additionally testified that he provided clean Pants to the Defendant during this time Period and that he took the Defendant's bloody pants and disposed of them in a plastic bag, Battle Creek Police Detective Stephanie Estree testified that she had been called to the victim's residence on Anderson Court in the City of Battle Creek at about 9:00 pm on June 11, 2016, Other officers were already on the scene when Estree arrived. There she found the victim dead, naked from the waist down, laying on the floor, face down, bloody, with obvious injuries to the back of her head. Estree observed a bloody shoe print on the back of the victim’s shirt. The prosecution later called Dr. Joseph Prahlow, forensic pathologist and deputy medical- examiner since 2015 at the Homer Stryker Medical School. Dr. Praholow testified that he has performed more than 5,000 autopsies. He had performed the autopsy of the victim and determined that Ms. Haney-Nelson had died as the result one or more injuries to her head by way of blunt force trauma. He also observed 4-7 fractured ribs on the victim’s left side. Notably, Prahlow testified that he did not call for a neuropathology consult because the victim in this case had quite clearly died as as result of a series of lethal injuries to her head. On or about March 15, 2018 the prosecution presented the testimony of Sophelia Andrews. Initially Ms. Andrews testified that she had communicated with the Defendant in June of 2016 when the Defendant had asked Andrews to telephone the victim to check on her well-being. The phone calls were not answered. Andrews was a hesitant witness who claimed to have little memory of the events of June, 2016 but she did acknowledge having been interviewed by Detective Estree on or about September 8, 2017. Ms. Andrews testified that she had told the truth to Estree in September of 2017 but that her memory since that time had been compromised due to the effects of her consumption of “crack and weed,” i tective Estree to testify that she had interviewed Ms. Andrews in Se ee oa? aid that be interview had been recorded ‘on video, She also testified that in the victim’s residence she had observed a mismatched pair of athletic shoes. One of the shoes bore a pattern similar to the bloody footprint. found ‘on the victim s ect fey he apparently not the shoe that had left the blood stain, although it appeared that it could have be the shoe that had left that stain.The prosecution then moved for the court to review the video of Ms, Andrews’ Interview frony September, 2017. Notwithstanding the defense counsel's objection, the court granted the Prosecution’s motion under MRE 803(5) and both attorneys have been provided with the Court’s decision on that issue... Ms. Andrews appeared to be significantly more luctd tn September of 2017 than she was when she appeared in court on March 15, 2018, At that tine: she related to Detective Estree that in June of 2016 Mr. Paige had come to Andrews’ home, late one night, and said to Andrews, “man, | think | killed (Haney-Nelson), She came at me with a knife and | hit her with a skillet”. Additionally, Andrews told Estree in September, 2017 that when the Defendant came to her house that night he had bloody pants, and blood on the bottom of his mismatched athletic shoes. The prosecution has moved that the matter be bound over on the open murder charge, The defense has opposed this motion. To establish that a crime has been committed, a prosecutor need not prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt, but must present some evidence of each element. People v Mill, 433 Mich 464, 469; 446 NW2d 140 (1989). Circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom can be sufficient. People v Maynor, 256 Mich App 238, 245; 662 NW2d 468 (2003) The cumulative effect of all of the testimony and evidence presented is sufficient to cause a person of ordinary prudence and caution to conscientiously entertain a reasonable belief of the accused's guilt.” People v Justice (After Remand), 454 Mich. 334, 344; 562 N.W.2d 652 (1997) Therefore the Defendant is bound over as charged. Exhibits shall be returned to the prosecution. April 9, 2018 E > NYS oo PAUL K, BEARDSLEE, District Judge