Controlled Substances, Delivery, Sufficiency of Evidence

People v Plunkett,281 Mich App 721; 760 NW2d 850 (2008)(nov’08).Defendant was consorting with a former prostitute (Corson) and funding her crack cocaine and heroin habit.After Corson had introduced a friend (Gregory) to heroin, Gregory used heroin defendant and Corson had purchased using defendant’s money.In part because she had consumed a substantial amount of alcohol before using heroin with Corson, Gregorydied.Defendant was charged with delivery causing death (MCL 750.317a), and delivery of heroin under 50 (MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(iv)).The district court rejected defendant’s sufficiency argument and bound over on both charges, but the circuit court found no evidence of delivery and granted defendant’s motion to quash as to both (the court allowed bindover on one count of delivery of less than 50 grams of cocaine (MCL333.7401(2)(a)(iv)), and maintaining a drug house (MCL 333.7405(1)(d)).The court of appeals agreed with the circuit court, finding that since defendant did not actually or constructively deliver heroin to Corson, the charges could not be brought.Nor could defendant be charged under an aiding or abetting theory as he did nothing to assist the drug dealer.Schuette, J., in dissent, would support a charge on the aiding and abetting theory.