People of Michigan v. Hunter William Locke-Hughes

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PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED

June 24, 2026

Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, 9:22 AM

v No. 370473

Macomb Circuit Court

HUNTER WILLIAM LOCKE-HUGHES, LC No. 2022-2126-FC

Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

Before: YOUNG, P.J., and BORRELLO and TREBILCOCK, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Hunter William Locke-Hughes, appeals as of right his convictions for

first-degree child abuse, MCL 750.136b(2), and involuntary manslaughter, MCL 750.321, of

six-year-old Terrance, who died under Locke-Hughes’ supervision. Locke-Hughes argues that the

evidence was insufficient to convict him of first-degree child abuse, that his trial counsel was

ineffective, and that he was denied the right to a fair trial. The prosecution filed a cross-appeal,

arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in issuing a sentence that departed downward from

the recommended minimum sentencing guideline. We vacate Locke-Hughes’ convictions and

remand for a new trial.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Ashlynn Bethell was mom to two children, Terrance and E, who was four years younger

than Terrance. When Terrance and E were born, Bethell was dating and living with their father,

Gary Adams.

When Terrance was born, he was diagnosed with a genetic disorder called CHARGE

syndrome and was severely disabled. He spent the first three months of his life in the hospital.

Bethell testified that, even after they brought Terrance home, they were “in and out” of the hospital

because he was “very sick.” In describing Terrance’s illness, Bethell testified that Terrance had

-1-

upper-airway issues and would aspirate when he ate, so he had a feeding tube inserted at just a few

months old. Bethell pureed his food. Feeding would take about five to ten minutes depending on

the day Terrance was having; sometimes he would become emotional and throw up.

Terrance wore hearing aids, was visually impaired, and could not communicate verbally.

Because Terrance was nonverbal, he would point to things that he wanted. One of his eyes was

small, and he had facial palsy on half of his face. Terrance had a flat forehead with a prominence

on each corner, which looked like bruising due to its discoloration. He also lacked cartilage in his

ears, making them appear abnormal. Terrance had a weak immune system. He would get

congestion that would turn into pneumonia or RSV. Terrance also had some heart issues, but these

were not as significant as his other medical needs. Terrance could walk, but he was unstable and

tripped easily. Terrance was not potty trained.

Terrance loved bathtime. Bethell would give him a bath after dinner, before bed. Bethell

could not recall how many times a week she would bathe Terrance, but she would bathe him if he

threw up on himself. Terrance would usually reach for her hand or wait for her to help him get in

the tub so he would not slip. He also needed help getting out of the tub. Terrance was capable

inside the tub, where he loved to splash and play. If there was no water in the tub, he could get in

and out by himself. Terrance was okay to be alone in the bathtub while Bethell would do other

things, periodically checking on him. She would put about six inches of water in the bathtub, and

Terrance liked to lay on his back in the tub.

CPS Becomes Involved With The Family And Bethell Begins Dating Locke-Hughes

Bethell and Adams broke up in January 2021, and Bethell and her children moved in with

Bethell’s mother. Bethell had shared custody with Adams and described their relationship as

“rocky.” Bethell’s mother and Adams’ mother would help watch the kids while Bethell was

working the night shift at Domino’s Pizza. Bethell met Locke-Hughes at Domino’s, and they

began dating in spring 2021. He was 19 and she was 26. After a few months of dating, Bethell

introduced Locke-Hughes to her kids. The four of them would go to the park and play in the house

together.

In June 2021, Bethell moved into the subject apartment with both of her kids. Children’s

Protective Services (CPS) became involved with their family around this time because Terrance

broke his arm. According to Bethell, she had taken Terrance to the hospital because his arm was

bothering him, and CPS became involved as a result. The assigned CPS caseworker later testified

that, based on the allegations of a fractured arm and facial injury, she first went to Bethell’s home

to meet with her, Terrance, E, and Locke-Hughes. Locke-Hughes confirmed he was not living in

the apartment at this time. CPS also interviewed Terrance’s grandparents and his father, Adams.

CPS did not have enough evidence to indicate intentional physical abuse but did substantiate

improper supervision against Bethell. A case was opened on this basis and CPS remained in touch

with the family to help provide services.

-2-

Shortly thereafter, in August 2021, Bethell took Terrance to the hospital again for a bruised

eye, triggering another CPS investigation. Because these incidents happened so closely in time, a

temporary voluntary arrangement was implemented, in which Terrance was placed with his

paternal grandmother for a couple weeks. E continued living with Bethell. Bethell was allowed

to visit Terrance a couple times per week, but with supervision from his grandmother or his

grandmother’s husband, who also lived in the home. Locke-Hughes never came with her on these

visits. After Terrance returned to Bethell’s care, services were recommended for Terrance’s

self-harming behaviors. Specifically, according to Bethell, Terrance would hit himself when he

was upset by knocking his knees together or hitting his head into walls or with his tablet. CPS

never observed Terrance self-harming. CPS was again unable to substantiate intentional physical

abuse.

In the fall of 2021, Locke-Hughes began spending the night at Bethell’s apartment and

moved in around September or October of that year. CPS was still involved with Bethell, including

daily check ins on the phone or via text, but was never notified that Locke-Hughes moved in. The

CPS caseworker later testified that during the seven or eight times she made in person visits to the

home, she had no concerns of the kids “being in distress or hav[ing] any issues.”

When Locke-Hughes moved in, he was working as a plumber during the daytime five or

six days a week, while Bethell was still working nights. Bethell always took the kids to family

members’ homes to babysit while she was working. The family members would never come to

watch the kids at Bethell’s apartment. At some point, Locke-Hughes began picking the kids up

from Bethell’s mother’s house after dinner, but before bedtime, three or four times a week. He

was not giving the kids baths during this time. Sometimes he would feed them. Bethell later

testified that Locke-Hughes would “help [her] with whatever [they] needed help with when [they]

were home.”

Around November 2021, Terrance went to the hospital again for injuries to his head and

eyes. CPS conducted another investigation but did not substantiate physical abuse or improper

supervision. CPS put a safety plan in place that required Bethell to report any new injuries

immediately to the caseworker. Part of the safety plan instructed Bethell to not leave her children

alone with Locke-Hughes, which she later testified that she adhered to “as best as [she] could.”

The CPS caseworker explained that the reason for this requirement was because of Terrance’s

special needs, which CPS did not believe Locke-Hughes, who had no special training, was

equipped to handle at his young age. Once the safety plan was put in place, Bethell stopped having

Locke-Hughes pick up the children from her mother’s house and Locke-Hughes was not left alone

with the children. CPS visited Bethell’s apartment three times per week to check on the children.

The Day Of Terrance’s Death

During the daytime on December 28, CPS came to the apartment for a meeting with Bethell

and her children, which Bethell later testified “went well.” CPS still did not know that

Locke-Hughes had moved in. CPS also did not notice anything out of the ordinary during that

-3-

meeting or any injuries to Terrance. Bethell was scheduled to work her usual night shift that

evening. Though Bethell’s mother was supposed to babysit, she cancelled due to illness. Bethell

asked Adams, his mother, and a couple other family members to babysit instead, but no one was

available. Bethell told Locke-Hughes of the situation, and he offered to babysit, though he had

never watched the kids for an entire work shift. Still, Bethell trusted Locke-Hughes to be alone

with her children. When Bethell was asked at trial if she felt that Locke-Hughes was “perfectly

capable of taking care of Terrance” at that time, she responded, “yes.” As Locke-Hughes arrived

at the apartment, Bethell rushed out to work. Bethell had just fed Terrance and she expected

Locke-Hughes to bathe him.

As Bethell was pulling out of the parking lot in her car to head to work, Locke-Hughes

called her. He told Bethell that Terrance had become very upset when she left and threw up.

According to Bethell, Locke-Hughes had been around Terrance before when he threw up but had

never been alone when it happened and never had to clean it up by himself. Bethell testified that

she offered to turn around and come home, but Locke-Hughes told her not to, so she continued

driving to work.

About 15 minutes later, she received another call from Locke-Hughes. Bethell described

Locke-Hughes as “very panicked and freaking out a little bit that [Terrance] had pooped in the

bathtub.” He was asking for help, did not know what to do, and indicated that he put Terrance on

a towel on the couch, like Bethell would do. Bethell was worried and considered coming home,

but Locke-Hughes told her, “I got this,” so she continued driving to work. Bethell later testified

that she felt a sense of relief that Locke-Hughes would take care of things.

Bethell received a third phone call from Locke-Hughes as she pulled into the parking lot

for work. Locke-Hughes was “hysterical” and told Bethell that Terrance was not breathing.

Bethell asked if he was doing CPR, Locke-Hughes replied that he was. She instructed him to call

911 and testified that she was surprised he called her before doing so.

Locke-Hughes did call 911, and Clinton Township Police Officer Nicholas Wagner

arrived. Wagner entered a bedroom and saw Locke-Hughes and Terrance; Terrance was lying

face up on the carpet. Terrence did not appear to be breathing and was unresponsive. Wagner

observed a bump or swelling on Terrance’s forehead and mucus or film on his face. Wagner

also observed vomit in the bathtub and on the bathroom floor as well as feces in the bathtub and on

the bathmat. Locke-Hughes appeared scared, was shaking, and even asked Wagner to hold his

hand for comfort. The Clinton Township Fire Department firefighters arrived and started

rendering aid to Terrance. MedStar arrived shortly afterwards to assist. Wagner’s body cam

footage was played for the jury. Wagner described that “people were all over” in the apartment

and that looking back on it, he would have kept everyone out of the bathroom, bedroom, and away

from the towel on the floor to protect the scene.

Clinton Township Firefighter and certified paramedic Ryan Clark was also on scene and

performed CPR and employed a bag-valve mask to ventilate Terrance. Terrance’s jaw was

-4-

clenched, which Clark thought was odd, and an endotracheal tube could not be inserted. There

was also some fluid that came out of his mouth that had to be wiped off. MedStar and EMT

personnel arrived on the scene during this time. Terrance was hooked up to the EKG monitor and

his heart was in asystole.1 He was given three rounds of epinephrine injections, but the injections

failed to jump start Terrance’s heart. Terrance was then transported to the hospital where there

were more tools to revive him.

Clinton Township Firefighter and certified paramedic Brett Elliott was also on scene.

Locke-Hughes explained to Elliot that E found Terrance in the bathtub and that Locke-Hughes

“rushed in, pulled him out and then he stated that he started CPR.” Elliott described Terrance as

appearing pale with vomit on his face and chest. He also observed a contusion on Terrance’s

forehead. Elliot assisted with CPR on Terrance and confirmed Terrance’s heart was in asystole

and their treatment was unable to reverse it.

Tiffani Haught testified she was a paramedic with MedStar Ambulance on the night of

Terrance’s death. When she arrived at the apartment and entered the bedroom, firefighters were

performing CPR on Terrance and a police officer was also there with Locke-Hughes in the corner

of the room. Terrance was hooked to a cardiac monitor and in asystole. Haught was informed that

Terrance had a downtime2 of five minutes or less. Haught found it odd that Terrance had drowned

in the bathtub because usually bathtub drownings are most common among infants and young

toddlers; “statistically six[-]year[-]old[s] are not associated with tub drownings.” Haught

emphasized the rigidity in Terrance’s jaw. According to Haught, this was unusual, as people

experiencing cardiac arrest typically have very pliable jaws. Haught explained that rigor mortis,

the tightening of the jaw that Terrance had exhibited, usually presents after an hour or more of a

patient being in cardiac arrest. It can set in faster, however, in warm temperatures or warm water.

Haught explained that these lack of “normal” drowning findings and “inconsistencies started to

pile up for [her].” She observed fluid in Terrance’s mouth, and coming from his ears and nose that

“looked like a mixture of water and his tube feed.” Considering all the efforts to resuscitate

Terrance, Haught was surprised that a pulse could not be reestablished based on the amount of

time Terrance was allegedly drowning.

Clinton Township Police Sergeant Steven Vasilides and Clinton Township Police Officer

Klajdi Dallo responded together to the scene. Both officers were trained to use a digital scanner

1

Cleveland Clinic, Asystole <https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/symptoms/22920-asystole>

(accessed April 28, 2026) (“Asystole is when your heart’s electrical system fails, causing your

heart to stop pumping. This is also known as ‘flat-line’ or ‘flat-lining’ because it causes your

heart’s electrical activity to look like a flat line on an electrocardiogram. Without immediate CPR

or medical care, this condition is deadly within minutes.”)

2

Haught explained that the term “downtime” refers to how long an individual has been in cardiac

arrest.

-5-

that takes measurements of rooms to recreate a three-dimensional version of a scene. There were

feces in the bathtub, which had 6 inches of water in it at the time the measurement was taken.

Vasilides testified later that there was likely more water in the bathtub before but that some had

been drained.3

In the meantime, Bethell drove home from work. During that time, she called Locke-

Hughes to ask what was going on. Locke-Hughes told Bethell that Terrance went back into the

bathtub on his own. Bethell was very concerned by Locke-Hughes’ account of what happened, as

she had never observed Terrance getting into a bathtub that was filled with water on his own.

When Bethell got home, medical personnel were “working on” Terrance and there were “people

everywhere.” Bethell could not approach Terrance at that time.

Bethell walked around the apartment and she entered the bathroom. She testified that she

flipped the drain in the bathtub “because there was poop floating in the water and [she] was just

walking around freaking out.” She observed feces all over the bathroom rug and in the bathtub.

She was surprised that Terrance had defecated in the tub, as he had never done that before. Bethell

was also surprised by the amount of water that was in the bathtub, as she did not believe it was the

amount she typically put in. However, on cross-examination, Bethell did not dispute that the police

measured 6 inches of water in the tub that evening—the same amount that Bethell testified she

would usually put into the bathtub.

Bethell eventually went to the hospital to see Terrance. She noticed that Terrance’s two

front teeth were knocked out, but she did not observe any other injuries to his face. Terrance was

pronounced dead within 10 minutes of arriving at the hospital. Following Terrance’s death,

Bethell and Locke-Hughes stayed together, and she relied on him for emotional support. It was

not until he was arrested in 2022 that they broke up.

Law Enforcement Investigates The Circumstances Of Terrance’s Death

Medical Examiner Investigator for both Macomb and Oakland counties, Jennifer Skridulis,

was immediately notified of Terrance’s death and went to the hospital. She obtained Terrance’s

medical records and two of his teeth that were placed into a bag. Skridulis took photos of

Terrance’s body, which show much of his body covered by a brown substance. After leaving the

3

Wagner recalled that at some point the drain to the bathtub was opened, and that he instructed

Locke-Hughes to “stop draining the tub” because he knew that law enforcement would “want to

analyze everything in the apartment.” Both Locke-Hughes and Bethell were in the bathroom at

the time with him. Bethell clarified at trial that she was the one that flipped the drain, not Locke-

Hughes.

-6-

hospital, Skridulis went to Bethell’s apartment. The evidence technicians were taking photos of

the scene, and Skridulis took some photos of it herself too.

Bethell’s CPS caseworker was notified of Terrance’s death the evening of December 28

and went to the apartment the following day for an in-person meeting with Bethell. In the

apartment during the meeting was Bethell, her sister, Locke-Hughes, his mother, and stepdad. The

CPS caseworker described Locke-Hughes as compliant, but not expressing much emotion. E was

removed from Bethell’s custody and placed with her grandmother. CPS initially sought to

terminate Bethell’s parental rights to E, but it eventually dropped termination from the petition and

issued a parenting agency agreement.4

Macomb County Medical Examiner Dr. Mary Pietrangelo performed an autopsy on

Terrance on December 29. The hospital told Pietrangelo that Terrance had CHARGE syndrome,

which she had never heard of before, so she reviewed a one-page summary that she found herself

for background. Pietrangelo also reviewed the hospital emergency room records, fire department

records, police reports, MedStar reports, medical records from Terrance’s treating physicians, and

photos from the apartment.

Pietrangelo found no esophageal abnormalities in Terrance and did not believe his

CHARGE syndrome contributed to his death. Instead, Pietrangelo identified Terrance’s cause of

death as drowning, with the manner of death indeterminate. She identified injuries to his mouth

but concluded they resulted from medical intervention and did not relate to the cause of death. She

also noticed the bruise on Terrance’s forehead but concluded that it was part of his facial bone

structure. During Pietrangelo’s internal examination of Terrance’s brain, she observed a number

of injuries on the underside of his scalp that corresponded with some bruises on the outside of his

scalp. There was a small spot of fresh bleeding on the back of the brain on left side behind the ear

that she stated would have been caused by Terrance’s head jolting from side to side, shifting his

brain. Pietrangelo also observed fresh hemorrhage to Terrance’s right shoulder blade, back trunk

area, and left shoulder blade, and concluded that these injuries were not related to CPR efforts.

She also observed fresh hemorrhage in the soft tissues around the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth lower

ribs, fresh abrasion on the left lower chest, and fresh hemorrhage in the sacral area. These injuries

were also consistent with blunt force trauma due to his body impacting the sides or bottom of the

bathtub.

Pietrangelo also performed an interior examination of Terrance’s neck. She found fresh

hemorrhaging in the right and left neck muscles consistent with blunt force trauma but no exterior

marks on the skin of the neck. Terrance’s lungs were hyperinflated, consistent with a drowning

death. Pietrangelo did not find water in his lungs, but indicated aspiration of stomach

contents can result in death. Pietrangelo also later testified that a person in the dying process

4

E and Bethell were reunited in September 2023 and the CPS case against her was closed out.

-7-

often loses control of their bowels and urine. She stated that finding defecation in the bathtub

would be consistent with dying in the bathtub, although feces were also found outside the

bathtub as well.

Law Enforcement Focuses Its Investigation On Locke-Hughes

Detective Thomas Hill of the Clinton Township Police Department responded to the scene

on December 28 as well and was assigned as officer in charge of investigating Terrance’s death.

After obtaining a warrant, he searched Bethell’s apartment and seized both her and

Locke-Hughes’ cell phones. Clinton Township Police Detective Joseph Burns extracted data

from Locke-Hughes’ cell phone. The analysis revealed that on December 28, Locke-Hughes had

an incoming FaceTime video call from Bethell at 5:55 p.m., lasting four minutes and thirty-three

seconds. Locke-Hughes next made a standard phone call to Bethell at 6:07:41 p.m., lasting fifty

seconds. He called Bethell again at 6:23:18 p.m., for six minutes and nine seconds. Locke-Hughes

then made a twenty-six-second-long Facetime video call to Bethell at 6:31:07 p.m. Locke-Hughes

called 911 at 6:31:48 p.m. for six minutes and forty-one seconds. Finally, Locke-Hughes received

a standard phone call from Bethell lasting one minute and twenty-five seconds at 6:39:22 p.m.

That same evening, Hill left Bethell’s apartment around 9:35 p.m. and requested that

Locke-Hughes be transported to the police station for an interview. Locke-Hughes agreed, and

Officer Wagner drove him to the police station. The interview was conducted by Hill and his

supervisor, Sergeant Simon, and was audio and video recorded, later played in full for the jury. At

the start of the interview, Hill told Locke-Hughes that he was not under arrest and that he was free

to leave at any time. Locke-Hughes nodded in agreement and replied that he just wanted to help.

The officers proceeded to ask primarily open-ended questions to Locke-Hughes, who shared his

version of the story from that evening. Locke-Hughes detailed his relationship with Bethell and

her kids, generally explained how much he helped out and cared for them, and emphasized that he

never physically harmed either of Bethell’s children. According to Locke-Hughes, Terrance’s

death was an accident. Locke-Hughes walked into the bathroom to find that Terrance defecated

in the bathtub. Locke-Hughes removed Terrance to clean him up and to call Bethell, and while he

was on the phone with Bethell, Terrance returned to the bathroom, climbed into the tub and

drowned to death.

At the end of the interview, Locke-Hughes thanked the officers for responding so quickly

to the scene that evening and gave them his contact information in case they needed anything

further from him while conducting their investigation. Locke-Hughes was free to leave when the

interview ended. Law enforcement kept his phone for processing pursuant to the warrant.

On April 6, 2022, Hill received Terrance’s autopsy report. He contacted Locke-Hughes

and asked him to come to the police station so Hill could return Locke-Hughes’ cell phone and to

process and to discuss the findings in the report. That same day, Locke-Hughes came in for his

second interview. Hill testified that Locke-Hughes was not under arrest at this time, came

voluntarily with his stepdad, and did not have counsel. However, Hill did not inform

-8-

Locke-Hughes that he was not under arrest, that he was free to leave, or that he was entitled to

counsel. This interview was audio and video recorded and later played for the jury in full.

Detective Jeff Bishop was also present for the interview and participated in questioning

Locke-Hughes.

Hill’s testimony at trial noted inconsistencies in Locke-Hughes’ statements between the

two interviews. In the second interview, Locke-Hughes said he saw Terrance defecate in the

bathtub, but in the first interview he said that Terrance had already defecated in the bathtub when

Locke-Hughes entered the bathroom. During the interview, Hill gave Locke-Hughes a doll to

simulate what happened exactly during Terrance’s bath the night of his death. “When

[Locke-Hughes] physically held the facsimile doll down, he held it down originally, and then he

stuck his two fingers behind the facsimile doll’s head, as if he was propping up [Terrance’s] head.”

However, when defense counsel on cross-examination asked, “[Locke-Hughes] never one time told

you that he put Terrance’s head under water?” Hill replied, “I believe that’s correct.” Again, counsel

asked, “[Locke-Hughes] never made an admission that he put [Terrance’s] head under water, true?”

Hill replied, “He never made an admission that he put his head under water, no.”

Our review of the interview video revealed a slightly more nuanced, and ultimately more

incriminating, discussion between the officers and Locke-Hughes. To start, this interview, unlike the

first, consisted primarily of leading questions and the officers providing their version of what

happened to Terrance. The officers frequently referenced the concepts of “god,” “redemption,” and

“forgiveness,” and encouraged Locke-Hughes to tell the truth to relieve himself of the guilt they

presumed he was carrying. Hill conceded that the second interview was structured differently than

the first interview because of the “information that had come to light.” Setting aside the nature of the

second interview, the following exchanges took place:

Hill: How long did you hold him underwater? One minute? Two minutes? How

long did you hold him underwater?

Locke-Hughes: I never held him under the water.

* * *

Hill: How long?

Locke-Hughes: I never put his head underwater.

Hill: What did you put under water?

Locke-Hughes: I had his body in the water, but I made sure his head was not in the

water.

-9-

Hill: That’s not an accurate statement.

Locke-Hughes: That’s what I did.

Hill: Were you holding him down?

Locke-Hughes: Yeah.

Hill: How were you holding him down?

Locke-Hughes: With his shoulders. But I never put his head under the water.

* * *

Hill: Was [Terrance] fighting you at all?

Locke-Hughes: Not really at all.

* * *

Hill: How long were you holding him there?

Locke-Hughes: No longer than 30-45 seconds.

* * *

Hill: How long did you hold him down with his head under the water?

Locke-Hughes: I did not put his head under the water?

* * *

Hill then asked Locke-Hughes to demonstrate how he was holding Terrance, which he did.

Hill then continued:

Hill: were you frustrated with him?

Locke-Hughes: I wasn’t frustrated with him. I never get frustrated with him.

Hill: But what was the reason you were holding his shoulders down?

Locke-Hughes: I really – I don’t know.

-10-

* * *

Hill: Why were you holding him down in the water like that?

Locke-Hughes: Because he didn’t like being washed . . . . and I had to get the soap

off of him.

* * *

Hill: is there a period of time while you were trying to get him washed off . . . that

you lost your sense of what was going on and you don’t remember why you held

him under water?

Locke-Hughes: It’s possible.

Hill: Was it an accident that you held him under water for as long as you did?

Locke-Hughes: Yes.

Hill: And how long do you think that was?

Locke-Hughes: It couldn’t have been longer than 45 seconds.

Hill also asked Locke-Hughes if it’s possible that he “blacked out” and didn’t remember

what happened, to which Locke-Hughes replied, “it’s possible.” Also, when Hill asked Locke-

Hughes if Terrance pooped before or after Locke-Hughes held him down, Locke-Hughes replied,

“I’m not sure,” in contrast with the timeline of events from his previous iterations. Bishop then

took over to ask Locke-Hughes questions. Bishop recited the events as he understood them,

including that Locke-Hughes held Terrance down for “45 seconds, maybe 2 minutes” as Locke-

Hughes nodded his head in agreement. He continued:

Bishop: Is it fair to say that while [Terrance] was struggling is when he went to the

bathroom in the tub?

Locke-Hughes: It’s fair to say that, yeah.

Bishop: Is that what happened?

Locke-Hughes: I honestly couldn’t tell you when he went to the bathroom in the

tub . . .

-11-

As the interview neared the end, Hill informed Locke-Hughes that his investigation would

continue and that he would be in touch after consulting with the prosecutor’s office. Locke-Hughes

asked, “what for?” As Hill was explaining that because Terrance died, subsequent criminal charges

would follow, Bishop cut him off to clarify, “Maybe. Potentially. There could be.” Bishop

elaborated, explaining that the prosecutor’s office is the ultimate decision maker regarding whether

charges are warranted. Before leaving, Hill grabbed the cell phone belonging to Locke-Hughes

that was already in their possession, confirmed that Locke-Hughes had an alternative phone to use,

and told him that they needed to keep his phone longer—despite originally telling Locke-Hughes

that they would be giving it back to him that day. The interview ended and Locke-Hughes went

home. The next day, Locke-Hughes was arrested and charged with first-degree child abuse and felony

murder.

Locke-Hughes’ Jury Trial And Subsequent Proceedings

Prior to trial, Locke-Hughes filed a motion to quash, arguing that his statements made

during the April 6 interview should be excluded from evidence at trial because they were made in

a custodial environment without being advised of his Miranda5 rights. The trial court heard and

denied the motion, holding that Locke-Hughes was not subject to a custodial interrogation on April

6, and therefore Miranda warnings were unnecessary.

The trial court order applied a totality of the circumstances test using the factors set forth in

People v Barritt, 325 Mich App 556; 926 NW2d 811 (2018). Its analysis emphasized that Locke-

Hughes went to the station voluntarily on April 6, that Hill told Locke-Hughes the interview would

end shortly, and discussed the general appearance of the room, including its size and that it was

well lit. The trial court noted that the officers were armed but did not make “any threatening moves

or gestures toward their weapons.” It mentioned Locke-Hughes’ age of 20 years old, but then

continued, “[t]he video recordings do not suggest [Locke-Hughes] was unable to appreciate the

gravity of the situation.” The trial court then considered duration, concluding the time here

suggested no custodial environment. It further mentioned that Locke-Hughes left at the end. Finally,

the trial court stated:

Detectives Bishop and Hill plainly disbelieved [Locke-Hughes’] version of the

events surrounding the death of Terrance . . . during the second interview.

However, they maintained a conversational tone at all times during their

questioning of [Locke-Hughes] and they did not browbeat [Locke-Hughes]. [Locke-

Hughes] was soft spoken, coherent and calm throughout the interviews; he did not

appear to be overwhelmed and did not breakdown but retained his composure.

While Detectives Bishop and Hill referenced ‘forgiveness coming with

redemption’, there is no evidence establishing the level of [Locke-Hughes’]

5

Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436; 86 S Ct 1602; 16 L Ed2d 694 (1966).

-12-

religious beliefs or that such an innocuous reference overcame his free will. Indeed,

[Locke-Hughes] continued to display an even emotional state rather than being

rattled by the questioning.

The motion to quash was denied.

Locke-Hughes’ jury trial began on January 23, 2024. The aforementioned police officers,

medical personnel, and Bethell testified at trial on behalf of the prosecution as provided above.

Expert witness in forensic pathology, Dr. Jonathan Arden, was the only defense witness at trial.

Arden reviewed the materials from the medical examiner, including the autopsy report and photos,

records from EMS, police reports, Terrance’s prior medical records, and Locke-Hughes’ two

interviews with police. He stated the autopsy revealed Terrance’s lungs were hyperinflated, gastric

contents had been aspirated into his lungs, and bruising in different places on Terrance’s body,

including his head and mild head injuries. Arden stated that a person can die from aspirating

gastric contents, although the person’s cause of death would not be drowning. A person who

drowns typically has lungs that are full of extra fluid, but Terrance’s were overfilled with air due

to the resuscitation efforts. Arden said Terrance had no significant head trauma that would have

rendered him unconscious or cause him to die. The hemorrhage noted in the autopsy report was

only on the surface of Terrance’s brain and did not affect his brain. Terrance’s scalp injuries were

superficial and would not have caused significant harm or death. The scalp injuries also may not

have occurred on the same day and could have been caused by Terrance’s acts of self-harming

behavior. Arden opined that Terrance’s CHARGE syndrome could have potentially caused him

to aspirate his gastric contents, which could in turn have caused him to collapse in the water and

drown. Arden also did not believe rigor mortis caused Terrance’s clenched jaw because it occurred

in too short of a time for rigor mortis to develop.

Arden concluded that Terrance’s cause of death was drowning and agreed with the manner

being indeterminate. Arden believed that the “although the totality of the facts and circumstances

[were] consistent with an accident, they are potentially consistent with at least one other choice.”

Terrance’s injuries were not consistent with his head being held underwater. Arden could not say

with medical certainty that CHARGE syndrome caused Terrance’s death. On cross-examination,

when asked if Terrance could have been held down under water, Arden replied, “it is within the

realm of possibility[.]”

Following Arden’s testimony, the prosecution and defense delivered closing arguments,

and the jury was sent to deliberate. During deliberations, the jury submitted two separate questions

to the court. First, they asked, “can first-degree child abuse be put with lesser murder charge?”

The parties agreed to answer the question in the affirmative. The next day, the jury submitted

another question, “in Michigan’s law for first-degree murder, are one of the elements child abuse?”

The Court stated that the question had been discussed in chambers and that the parties agreed that

they would respond by instructing the jury to review the instructions already provided, including

-13-

the elements of each count. The jury returned its verdict, finding Locke-Hughes guilty of first-

degree child abuse, and guilty of the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter.

The trial court sentenced Locke-Hughes to 90 months to 30 years for first-degree child

abuse and 43 months to 15 years for involuntary manslaughter, to run concurrently. On the first-

degree child abuse sentence, the trial judge departed downward by 45 months from the

recommended guidelines. In justifying this departure, the trial court acknowledged Locke-

Hughes’ acceptance of some responsibility, lack of prior criminal history, and the complex

circumstances surrounding Terrance’s care.

Locke-Hughes subsequently moved for entry of judgment of acquittal/for a new trial,

raising the same four issues that are raised in the instant appeal. The motion was denied by the

trial court. Locke-Hughes filed this appeal. The prosecution filed a cross-appeal, arguing that the

trial court abused its discretion in issuing a sentence that departed downward from the

recommended guidelines.

II. ANALYSIS

There was sufficient evidence presented at trial to support Locke-Hughes’ first-degree

child abuse conviction. However, because the most critical evidence to support the requisite intent

came from a custodial interrogation performed without the benefit of Miranda warnings, Locke-

Hughes is entitled to a new trial on all charges.6

A. LOCKE-HUGHES’ FIRST-DEGREE CHILD ABUSE CONVICTION WAS SUPPORTED

BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE

There is no preservation requirement when raising a sufficiency of the evidence issue on

appeal. People v Hawkins, 245 Mich App 439, 457; 628 NW2d 105 (2001). This Court reviews

whether a conviction lacks sufficient evidence de novo. People v Osby, 291 Mich App 412, 415;

804 NW2d 903 (2011). This Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the

prosecution to “determine whether a rational trier of fact could find that the essential elements of

the crime were proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” People v Alter, 255 Mich App 194, 201-202;

659 NW2d 667 (2003). “The standard of review is deferential: a reviewing court is required to

draw all reasonable inferences and make credibility choices in support of the jury verdict.” People

v Nowack, 462 Mich 392, 400; 614 NW2d 78 (2000).

6

Given our resolution of this issue, we decline to address Locke-Hughes’ remaining claims and

the prosecution’s cross-appeal. See Kosmyna v Botsford Community Hosp, 238 Mich App 694,

702; 607 NW2d 134 (1999).

-14-

A conviction lacking sufficient evidence violates a defendant’s right to due process under

the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Jackson v Virginia, 443 US 307,

316; 99 S Ct 2781; 61 L Ed 2d 560 (1979) (explaining that an “essential” guarantee of due process

is the protection against conviction except where there is “evidence . . . to convince a trier of fact

beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of every element of the offense”). Unless “sufficient

evidence” against a defendant has been introduced, a “judgment of acquittal should be entered.”

People v Hampton, 407 Mich 354, 368; 285 NW2d 284 (1979). The mere fact that there is “some

evidence” against a defendant, however, does not necessarily imply that there is also proof beyond

a reasonable doubt. Id. (holding that a court may grant a directed verdict of acquittal even where

“some evidence” has been admitted).

On appeal, Locke-Hughes argues that his first-degree child abuse conviction was not

supported by sufficient evidence. Specifically, Locke-Hughes claims no evidence showed that he

knowingly or intentionally drowned Terrance.

“A person is guilty of child abuse in the first degree if the person knowingly or intentionally

causes serious physical harm or serious mental harm to a child.” MCL 750.136b(2); People v

Lane, 308 Mich App 38, 57; 862 NW2d 446 (2014). “Knowingly or intentionally” requires the

prosecution must prove that the defendant intended to cause serious physical harm or that he knew

that serious physical harm would be caused by his actions. People v Maynor, 470 Mich 289, 295-

296; 683 NW2d 565 (2004). Here, the trial court found that “sufficient evidence was presented

for the jury to find [Locke-Hughes] knew that the natural and probable consequences of his

intentional acts included death to Terrance[.]” We agree.

There was some, albeit not sufficient, evidence of first-degree child abuse through

circumstantial evidence such as the video of Terrance playing in the bath that was played at trial,

Bethell’s testimony relating to Terrance’s positive experiences with bathtime generally, and the

passage of time from the call records between Bethell and Locke-Hughes.

Pietrangelo’s examination of Terrance revealed injuries to Terrance’s scalp and

hemorrhaging to his shoulder blades, back trunk area, and left shoulder blade, that she did not

attribute to CPR efforts. She also observed fresh hemorrhage in the soft tissues around the tenth,

eleventh, and twelfth lower ribs, fresh abrasion on the left lower chest, and fresh hemorrhage in

the sacral area—which are consistent with blunt force trauma due to Terrance’s body impacting

the sides or bottom of the bathtub. However, the two forensic pathologists who testified at trial

could not say this was a homicide, as opposed to an accident, and both cited “indeterminate” as

the manner of death.

During closing argument, the prosecutor stated that she did not think that Locke-Hughes

“intentionally set out to kill Terry that day.” The same is true of Hill, who during the April 6

interview stated multiple times that he thought it was an accident and that Locke-Hughes never

meant to hurt Terrance. These facts, taken in the light most favorable to the prosecutor, indicate

-15-

opportunity, but do not offer much in the way of intent. That only comes through the second

interview where the following relevant exchanges take place:

Hill: Were you holding him down?

Locke-Hughes: Yeah.

Hill: How were you holding him down?

Locke-Hughes: With his shoulders. But I never put his head under the water.

* * *

Hill: Was [Terrance] fighting you at all?

Locke-Hughes: Not really at all.

* * *

Hill: How long were you holding him there?

Locke-Hughes: No longer than 30-45 seconds.

* * *

Hill: Were you frustrated with him?

Locke-Hughes: I wasn’t frustrated with him. I never get frustrated with him.

Hill: But what was the reason you were holding his shoulders down?

Locke-Hughes: I really – I don’t know.

* * *

Hill: Why were you holding him down in the water like that?

Locke-Hughes: Because he didn’t like being washed . . . . and I had to get the soap

off of him.

-16-

Viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence presented at trial through

the April 6 interview video indicated that Locke-Hughes knowingly and intentionally held

Terrance down in the bathtub. Locke-Hughes admits repeatedly that he held Terrance’s shoulders

down in the bathtub that night. Because of this video specifically, and Locke-Hughes’ statements

made therein, there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s conviction for first-degree child

abuse.

B. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING LOCKE-HUGHES’ CUSTODIAL

STATEMENTS DURING THE APRIL 6 INTERVIEW WITHOUT GIVING MIRANDA

WARNINGS

This Court reviews de novo a trial court’s decision on a motion to suppress but reviews all

underlying factual findings for clear error. People v Elliott, 494 Mich 292, 300-301; 833 NW2d

284 (2013). “The ultimate question whether a person was ‘in custody’ for purposes of Miranda

warnings is a mixed question of fact and law, which must be answered independently by the

reviewing court after review de novo of the record.” Barritt, 325 Mich App at 561 (quotation

marks and citations omitted). A trial court’s factual findings concerning the circumstances

surrounding statements to the police are reviewed for clear error. Id. “A finding is clearly

erroneous if, after reviewing the entire record, an appellate court is left with a definite and firm

conviction that a mistake has been made.” Id. “The United States Supreme Court has determined

that the erroneous admission of a confession into evidence is a nonstructural defect that does not

justify automatic reversal but, instead, requires a harmless-error analysis.” People v Whitehead,

238 Mich App 1, 7; 604 NW2d 737 (1999), citing Arizona v Fulminante, 499 US 279, 295; 111 S

Ct 1246, 113 L Ed 2d 302 (1991). In declaring a constitutional error as harmless, “[t]he court must

determine, beyond a reasonable doubt [,] that there is no reasonable possibility that the evidence

complained of might have contributed to the conviction.” Whitehead, 238 Mich App at 7-8

(quotation marks omitted; alteration in original).

Both the United States and Michigan Constitutions protect citizens against self-

incrimination and afford due process of law. US Const, Ams V and XIV; Const 1963, art 1, § 17.

Miranda enforced these constitutional protections by requiring that “the police must warn a

defendant of his or her constitutional rights if the defendant is taken into custody for interrogation.”

Barritt, 325 Mich App at 561. “Statements made by a defendant to the police during a custodial

interrogation are not admissible unless the defendant voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently

waives the constitutional right against self-incrimination.” Id. at 561-562.

-17-

Here, both parties agree that Locke-Hughes was not advised of his Miranda rights during

his second interview7 with law enforcement on April 6. Locke-Hughes argues that he should have

been Mirandized particularly because (1) he was brought to the station under false pretenses and

did not voluntarily present himself for an interview; (2) he was not told that he could leave at any

time; (3) the nature of the interview was coercive; (4) and the officer originally disclosed that

charges would likely follow.

In determining whether a person is in custody for purposes of a Miranda analysis, we must

first ascertain whether, in light of the objective circumstances of the interrogation, a reasonable

person would have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave. Barritt,

325 Mich App at 562 (quotation marks and citations omitted). “[I]n order to determine how a

suspect would have ‘gauge[d]’ his or her ‘freedom of movement,’ courts must examine ‘all of the

circumstances surrounding the interrogation . . . .’ ” Id., quoting Stansbury v California, 511 US

318, 322, 325; 114 S Ct 1526; 128 L Ed 2d 293 (1994). The relevant circumstances to consider

include: (1) the location of the questioning, (2) the duration of the questioning, (3) statements made

during the interview, (4) the presence or absence of physical restraints during the questioning, and

(5) the release of the interviewee at the end of the questioning. Id. A reviewing Court must

consider the totality of the circumstances when deciding whether an individual was subjected to

custodial interrogation under Miranda; no one circumstance is controlling. Id.

Turning first to the location, Locke-Hughes was questioned at the police station. A police

station is a “police-dominated atmosphere” as contemplated by Miranda and accordingly weighs

in favor of finding a custodial environment. Id. at 545. Although this fact alone is not dispositive,

id. at 565, the officers here were armed during Locke-Hughes’ interview, the door to the room was

shut, and the officers were sitting between Locke-Hughes and the door, with their backs to the

door. Taking these facts together, we believe a reasonable person would not have felt at liberty to

leave or terminate the interview, and thus, this factor weighs in favor of finding that Locke-Hughes

was in custody.

Second, we consider the duration of the interview. In Barritt, a 90-minute-long interview

was deemed neutral. Id. at 569. In reaching this conclusion, the Barritt court compared

Yarborough v Alvarado, 541 US 652, 663; 124 S Ct 2140; 158 L Ed 2d 938 (2004)—where a two-

hour interview weighed in favor of finding custody—to Oregon v Mathiason, 429 US 492, 495;

97 S Ct 711; 50 L Ed 2d 714 (1977), which determined that a half-hour interview did not constitute

custody. Barritt, 325 Mich App at 569-670. This Court has also found an interview duration of

69 minutes to be neutral. People v Lewinski, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW3d ___ (2024)

(Docket No. 365350); slip op at 5. Locke-Hughes’ interview lasted for 1 hour and 11 minutes.

7

Locke-Hughes was interviewed twice by law enforcement in connection with this case; first, on

December 28, 2021, and again on April 6, 2022. Locke-Hughes’ Miranda challenge only focuses

on the second interview, and therefore, so does our analysis herein.

-18-

Comparing this length of time against these relevant cases, we conclude that the duration of Locke-

Hughes’ April 6 interview is neutral or disfavors a finding of custody.

Regarding the third factor—statements made during the interview—the “failure to tell a

suspect that he or she is free to leave is one factor that can contribute to a finding that a suspect

was in custody.” Id. “If an officer did not tell [the] defendant that he was free to leave . . . , [this

fact] weigh[s] in favor of the view that [the] defendant was in custody.” Id. (quotation marks

omitted; alterations in original). At no point during the April 6 interview did law enforcement tell

Locke-Hughes that he was free to leave. Locke-Hughes began to make some incriminating

statements about twenty-five minutes into the interview and the officers continued questioning

him for nearly an hour. Thus, we conclude this factor weighs in favor of finding that Locke-

Hughes would not have felt free to leave or terminate the interview.

Fourth, we consider the presence or absence of physical restraints during the questioning.

“Generally, the lack of handcuffs weighs against a finding of custody.” Barritt, 325 Mich App at

575. “However, other forms of restraint may support a finding of custody.” Lewinski, ___ Mich

App at ___; slip op at 5. In Barritt, the trial court found that Barritt being in the presence of at

least one armed police officer at all times constituted a restraint, and this Court agreed. Barritt,

325 Mich App at 575-576. Likewise, in Lewinski, Lewinski was not handcuffed or interrogated at

a police station, but rather was questioned while receiving treatment in a hospital bed. The

detectives conducting the interview were standing between Lewinski’s hospital bed and the door

to the room, which was shut. They were also armed. This Court concluded:

[E]ven though [Lewinski] was not handcuffed, [he] could not get out of bed and

leave the hospital but, more importantly, it is not likely that the detectives would

have allowed [him] to get out of bed and leave the hospital, i.e., [Lewinski] would

have been restrained at such an attempt. [Lewinski, ___ Mich App at ___; slip op

at 5.]

Here, the officers were armed during Locke-Hughes’ interview, the door to the room was shut,

and the officers were sitting between Locke-Hughes and the door, with their backs to the door.

Thus, this factor weighs in favor of finding that Locke-Hughes would not have felt free to leave

or terminate the interview.

The fifth and final factor to consider is whether the interviewee was released after

questioning. There is no dispute that Locke-Hughes was released, which weighs against custody.

Based on the totality of the circumstances, we believe the trial court erred. A reasonable

person in Locke-Hughes’ position would not have felt free to terminate the interview and leave.

Next, we turn to the second consideration in determining whether Locke-Hughes was

“in-custody” for purposes of deciding whether he was subjected to custodial interrogation under

Miranda. “As our Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court have stated, determining

-19-

whether an individual’s freedom of movement was curtailed is the first step in the analysis, not the

last.” Lewinski, ___ Mich App at ___; slip op at 6, citing Barritt, 325 Mich App at 580. The next

step asks “whether the relevant environment presents the same inherently coercive pressures as the

type of station house questioning at issue in Miranda.” Barritt, 325 Mich App at 581. We disagree

with the trial court and believe that Locke-Hughes’ interview took place in a coercive environment.

To begin, Hill himself conceded that the nature of the April 6 interview was different from

the December 28 interview. On April 6, the officers’ questions were leading, presumptive, and

increasingly accusatory. Throughout the interview, the officers made various responses pushing

back and doubting Locke-Hughes’ version of the story, including, “that’s not what happened, and

you know that’s not what happened.” The officers frequently referenced “god” and inferred that

Locke-Hughes must be carrying guilt for which he should confess and seek forgiveness. They

reminded Locke-Hughes that, if he did not confess, he would be “portrayed as a monster” and

continued to play on Locke-Hughes’ emotions by showing pictures of Terrance, saying how he

did not deserve to die this way and how Terrance loved Locke-Hughes. Although the tactics used

here do not share the level of hostility as the officers in Barritt, the accusatory statements made by

the officers here had a coercive effect. See People v Gerwatowski, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___

NW3d ___ (2026) (Docket No. 374157); slip op at 5 (“The officers were accusatory toward

[Gerwatowski] by suggesting that she either made a bad decision or was a monster, which weighs

in favor of a finding that [she] was in custody.”). The trial court took no issue with Hill and

Bishop’s religious references because “there is no evidence establishing the level of [Locke-

Hughes’] religious beliefs or that such an innocuous reference overcame his free will.” We do not

believe that Locke-Hughes’ religion (or lack thereof) bears any relevance here. We further believe

that the effect of the statements made by these officers was coercive, particularly for a 20-year-old

person with no prior criminal charges.

We also observe coercion in how the interview was initiated. The prosecution emphasizes

that Locke-Hughes came down to the station voluntarily. This is true, but also misleading, as

Locke-Hughes was asked to come down to the station for the purpose of picking up his phone.

But, Locke-Hughes left the interview without his phone, which Hill said he needed to “hang onto”

at the end of the interview, and even asked Locke-Hughes to sign a document indicating that he

was supposed to pick up his phone that day but ultimately was unable to do so. As such, we cannot

say that Locke-Hughes’ decision to come to the station was entirely voluntary.

Accordingly, we conclude that a reasonable person in Locke-Hughes’ position would not

have felt at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave, and the environment presented the

same coercive pressures as the type of station house questioning in Miranda. Therefore,

Locke-Hughes was “in custody,” and his Fifth Amendment rights were violated when he was not

advised of his Miranda rights at any time during his April 6 interview.

Having found a Miranda violation in the admission of the April 6 interview as evidence at

trial, we next turn to remedy. “[A] reviewing court [must] conduct a thorough examination of the

record. If, at the end of that examination, the court cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt

-20-

that the jury verdict would have been the same absent the error [,] . . . it should not find the error

harmless.” Whitehead, 238 Mich App at 9. Thus, “the question before us is whether, absent the

confession, honest, fair-minded jurors might very well have brought in not-guilty verdicts.” Id.

(quotation marks and citation omitted). “If the proof against defendant was so overwhelming that

all reasonable jurors would have found guilt even without the confession being brought into

evidence, the conviction must stand.” Id. at 10.

Here, we cannot say that reasonable jurors would have found Locke-Hughes guilty of

first-degree child abuse absent admission of the April 6 interview video. The evidence against

Locke-Hughes, independent of this video, as detailed above, was circumstantial and not

overwhelming. Though the evidence at trial revealed that Locke-Hughes had the opportunity to

commit first-degree child abuse against Terrance, it did not indicate the requisite intent. The April

6 video was the only piece of evidence revealing potential intent, and thus, there is a reasonable

possibility that a factfinder would have acquitted Locke-Hughes of this charge had it not been

played at trial. As such, we conclude this error was not harmless and warrants reversal.

We vacate Locke-Hughes’ convictions and remand for a new trial. We do not retain

jurisdiction.

/s/ Adrienne N. Young

/s/ Stephen L. Borrello

/s/ Christopher M. Trebilcock

-21-