People of Michigan v. Grant Charles Balogh

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals
DecidedApril 16, 2020
Docket343097
StatusUnpublished

This text of People of Michigan v. Grant Charles Balogh (People of Michigan v. Grant Charles Balogh) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People of Michigan v. Grant Charles Balogh, (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).

Opinion

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED April 16, 2020 Plaintiff-Appellant,

v No. 343097 Wayne Circuit Court GRANT CHARLES BALOGH, LC No. 17-009293-01-AR

Defendant-Appellee.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v No. 343098 Wayne Circuit Court GABRIEL VICTOR BALOGH, LC No. 17-009329-01-AR

Before: TUKEL, P.J., and JANSEN and RIORDAN, JJ.

JANSEN, J. (dissenting).

I respectfully dissent.

Recently, our Supreme Court reiterated that,

In order to bind a defendant over for trial in the circuit court, the district court must find probable cause that this defendant committed a felony. This standard requires evidence of each element of the crime charged or evidence from which the elements may be inferred. Absent an abuse of discretion, a reviewing court should not disturb the district court’s bindover decision. An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision falls outside the range of principled outcomes. [People v Anderson, 501 Mich 175, 181-182; 912 NW2d 503 (2018), quoting People v

-1- Seewald, 499 Mich 111, 116; 879 NW2d 237 (2016) (quotation marks and citations removed).]

In Michigan, it is the role of a magistrate during a preliminary examination to determine whether probable cause exists to conclude that a defendant has committed a crime, and therefore will be bound over for trial. Anderson, 501 Mich at 183. “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.” Id. at 184, quoting People v Yost, 468 Mich 122, 126; 659 NW2d 604 (2003). MCL 766.13 “requires a magistrate to consider all the evidence presented,” and to draw his or her conclusion at the end of the preliminary examination. Anderson, 501 Mich at 184 (alteration in original).

The magistrate in this case presided over a lengthy preliminary examination, replete with testimony from several witnesses including the Assistant Wayne County Medical Examiner, Dr. Lokman Sung, who was qualified as an expert forensic medical examiner, Dr. Ljubisa Dragovic, Chief Resident Pathologist and Chief Medical Examiner for Oakland County, who was qualified as an expert in forensic pathology and neuropathology, and the Director of the Ataxia Clinic at the University of Michigan, Dr. Vikram Shakkottai, who was qualified as an expert in the field of neurology and Spinocerebellar Ataxia.

Dr. Sung performed the autopsy on the decedent, Vickie Balogh. At the time of the autopsy, Dr. Sung was aware that Vickie suffered from Spinocerebellar Ataxia Type 1, and was clear at the preliminary examination that he possessed no special training or expertise in the condition. Indeed, Vickie was the first person he had performed an autopsy on with Spinocerebellar Ataxia Type 1. Dr. Sung testified that despite his unfamiliarity with the disease, he had read five or so journals on the topic after performing the autopsy, but before authoring his report. Yet at the preliminary examination, Dr. Sung could not recall even one title of a journal he read, and obviously they were not produced. Dr. Sung also testified that despite having access to an investigator, he only used that investigator to obtain medical records, and further, Dr. Sung failed to speak with anyone who had some expertise in the area of Spinocerebellar Ataxia Type 1.1 Ultimately, Dr. Sung opined that Vickie’s cause of death was cachexia, or “the wasting of the body to a point that it would not further sustain life,” and the manner of death was indeterminable. Dr. Sung wrote in his summary and opinion contained within Vickie’s autopsy report,

It is my opinion that death was caused by cachexia due to malnutrition. According to available medical records, the decedent had a past medical history significant for spinocerebellar ataxia. Sporadic medical records extending back to 2009 indicate a relatively stable body weight of approximately 100 lbs, with the last documented weight of 100 lbs and a BMI of 17.7 on September 22, 2015. At the time of autopsy, the body weight was 79 pounds with a BMI of 13.6. The most recent physician record also states that the natural disease was likely to progress and that discussions

1 Dr. Sung did not bring Vickie’s medical records with him to testify at the preliminary examination. In fact, the medical records that Dr. Sung testified that he reviewed were destroyed in keeping with the Wayne County Medical Examiner’s procedures.

-2- regarding resources to help with patient needs and advanced directives were needed. It is unknown to this author the outcome of those discussions. There is no documentation on mental disability, but it is unclear from the records the ability of the decedent to eat and perform activities of daily living.

The manner of death is indeterminate. If additional information becomes available, review and modification of the manner of death may be appropriate.

Dr. Dragovic, who testified at the request of defendants’ attorneys, reviewed Vickie’s medical records as well as the Wayne County Medical Examiner’s Report authored by Dr. Sung. Dr. Dragovic also reviewed autopsy photographs and microscopic slides that had been “generated as relevant diagnostic evidence in [this] case.” Dr. Dragovic is familiar with Spinocerebellar Ataxia Type 1, and explained that Vickie suffered from the disease. Dr. Dragovic explained that Spinocerebellar Ataxia Type 1 is a rare, hereditary condition in which individuals “suffer a gradual, progressive . . . wasting of their muscles, their body in general, because of the inability to move and control the movements adequately, which is all caused by the degenerative process that is pre- coded in the genetic material that is passed from one generation to the other[.]”2

Indeed, Dr. Dragovic was clear that wasting is a clinical sign of Spinocerebellar Ataxia Type 1, and is caused by “altered metabolic rates in these individuals[.]” The physical wasting, as well as “various other complications . . . leads to early death, and it is well known that the sooner the condition gives a clinical appearance, the sooner the lifespan [sic].” Dr. Dragovic was also clear that “weight loss is an inevitable aspect of this condition–this disease–and it’s also tied into the process of malfunctioning of the brain stem control, the control of the cranial nerves . . . that are situated in the brain stem, and the difficulties in swallowing that get more and more enhanced as the disease progresses.”

Dr. Dragovic further testified that “people with this condition end up dying from respiratory complication.” Indeed, Dr. Dragovic was of the opinion that Vickie did succumb to pneumonia, explaining that:

Dr. Sung submitted samples in three microscopic slides. Two of those microscopic slides – in those three microscopic slides that contained samples of the lungs, bronco pneumonia cannot be missed by anyone other than a totally blind individual.

Moreover, Vickie’s liver showed “severe enteropathy,” and her kidneys showed significant scarring; both characteristics of the disease. According, Dr. Dragovic offered the following opinion on cause of death:

2 Indeed, Vickie inherited the disease from her mother Carolyn Masserant, who also died from Spinocerebellar Ataxia Type 1. All three of Vickie’s brothers also died from the disease, and it is believed that one of defendants also inherited Spinocerebellar Ataxia Type 1.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Yost
659 N.W.2d 604 (Michigan Supreme Court, 2003)
People v. PAILLE 2
178 N.W.2d 465 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1970)
PEOPLE v McMAHAN
548 N.W.2d 199 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1996)
People v. Seewald
879 N.W.2d 237 (Michigan Supreme Court, 2016)
People of Michigan v. Tremel Anderson
912 N.W.2d 503 (Michigan Supreme Court, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
People of Michigan v. Grant Charles Balogh, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-of-michigan-v-grant-charles-balogh-michctapp-2020.