There is no evidence of such. The "quasi" carnivory of Proboscidea, Ibicella, etc. has already been rejected because they do not reliably show any digestive properties (either via direct production from the plant or using a proxy such as assassin bug associates or midge larvae), do not show direct uptake of nutrients from captured insects via the leaves (the only structures that are modified as traps in any carnivore genus), and there is no evidence of the plants doing significantly better in any way from the insects that are killed on them (increased growth, flowering, seed set etc.); those are the three general requirements for carnivory to be considered, and plants that in some way kill but do not perform digestion or direct uptake are often labeled "murderous plants" instead. Decay of an animal nearby a plant, for whatever reason related to the plant or not, does dot qualify for carnivory, only a case of useful fertilization via the standard root uptake method. There are several plants in South America with inward-pointing barbs on either leaves or stems known to hook birds or small mammals, but they are not classed as carnivorous because they do not experience the three key requirements and if nutrients are taken up from decaying animals, it's from the roots and would be no different from those plants that gather leaf litter around them to source nutrients from.