People of Michigan v. Kelli Marie Worth-Mcbride , 929 N.W.2d 285 ( 2019 )

Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
June 28, 2019 Bridget M. McCormack,
Chief Justice
David F. Viviano,
Chief Justice Pro Tem
156430
Stephen J. Markman
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Brian K. Zahra
Plaintiff-Appellee, Richard H. Bernstein
Elizabeth T. Clement
v SC: 156430 Megan K. Cavanagh,
Justices
COA: 331602
Wayne CC: 13-000575-FC
KELLI MARIE WORTH-McBRIDE,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________/
On January 23, 2019, the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave to
appeal the July 13, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the
application is again considered. MCR 7.305(H)(1). In lieu of granting leave to appeal,
we VACATE the Court of Appeals judgment and REMAND this case to the Court of
Appeals for consideration of whether the defendant’s due-process right to be informed of
the nature of the charges against her was violated where the trial court convicted her as a
principal of second-degree murder, MCL 750.317, and first-degree child abuse, MCL
750.136b(2), despite the prosecution proceeding solely on a theory that the defendant
aided and abetted the victim’s father in the commission of these crimes. See Cole v
Arkansas, 333 US 196, 201 (1948). The trial court did not resolve prior to trial the
defendant’s motion to quash the bindover, in which the defendant asserted that the
evidence was insufficient to support an accomplice-liability theory, see MCL 767.39,
because the evidence only showed that the defendant had failed to prevent the victim’s
father from harming their son. See People v Burrel, 253 Mich 321, 323 (1931) (“ ‘Mere
presence, even with knowledge that an offense is about to be committed or is being
committed, is not enough to make a person an aider or abettor . . . nor is mere mental
approval, sufficient, nor passive acquiescence or consent.’ ”) (citation omitted). The
Court of Appeals may also address whether the record evidence supports a finding that
defendant was guilty as an aider and abettor and any other issue the Court of Appeals
determines is necessary to resolve the issue we have remanded to it, in addition to any
issues that the defendant raises that relate to the trial court’s stated explanation for its
verdict, see MCR 6.403.
We do not retain jurisdiction.
I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
June 28, 2019
p0626
Clerk