The trial court and the Court of Appeals misinterpreted key parts of criminal statute and abused their discretion by denying a motion to quash a bind over in the case of a juvenile defendant charged as an adult for assault with intent to commit great bodily harm, the Supreme Court ruled on Friday in a 6-1 decision.
In the original case, Evan Andrew Oslund, under the automatic waiver statute, was charged as an adult with aiding and abetting an assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder in the alleged attack of a 16-year-old boy on the autism spectrum.
The alleged attack occurred Aug. 31, 2021, at the Howell Skate Park on the Howell High School campus.
It is alleged that a co-defendant befriended the 16-year-old, who was a new student, and introduced him to his friends at the skate park near the school. Oslund allegedly filmed his two friends attacking the victim, allegedly punching the teen until he fell, and then repeatedly kicking him, causing bruising, a concussion and post-traumatic stress disorder.
The teen assailants were identified when an assistant principal saw a video of the assault that had circulated at the school. Another classmate reported to the assistant principal that Oslund filmed the assault.
The majority held the Legislature intended the term “dangerous weapon” in both the penal code and code of criminal procedure to be taken together. And because a shoe “is ‘likely to cause … bodily injury when used as a weapon’” the trial court did not abuse its discretion when rejecting Oslund’s request to dismiss his criminal case.
In an opinion written by Justice Richard Bernstein, the high court’s majority in People v. Oslund (MSC Docket No. 165544) reversed and vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals in part, and remanded the case to the Livingston Circuit Court to quash the bind over decision and to transfer the case to Livingston County’s family court division.
Justice Megan Cavanagh wrote a concurring opinion joined by Justice Elizabeth Welch to clarify subject matter jurisdiction in cases involving juveniles.
Welch wrote separately, joined by Chief Justice Elizabeth Clement, to concur with the majority and provide guidance on procedures for charging a juvenile as an adult.
Justice David Viviano wrote a dissenting opinion in which he disagreed with the majority’s conclusion and addressed the issue of the defendant not preserving the issue in the lower courts.
This was not the first time the Supreme Court considered facts in Oslund.
In 2023, a split Court of Appeals panel upheld the bind over in the case, which included a 16-year-old defendant who was charged with assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder. Juveniles can automatically be charged as adults with this crime if a dangerous weapon is used.
The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and heard oral arguments in April, but in June asked for additional briefs addressing if there was any error in the lower courts’ application of the law with respect to the “armed with a dangerous weapon” requirement.
The prosecutor in the case used the state’s automatic waiver law to charge the juvenile defendant as an adult, arguing a shoe was used as a dangerous weapon.
After inviting the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan and the Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan to submit additional briefs, the high court on Friday held that in order for the criminal division of a circuit court to have jurisdiction over a juvenile defendant pursuant to statute, the juvenile must be armed with a dangerous weapon.
There was no evidence of that in Oslund, Bernstein wrote, and thus the criminal division of the Livingston Circuit Court had jurisdiction over the defendant. The Court of Appeals’ holding to the contrary was therefore vacated with instructions to quash the bind over. The same was true for the Court of Appeals’ decision regarding the shoe as a dangerous weapon.
“In light of our disposition of this case, it was unnecessary for the Court of Appeals to reach the issue of whether the shoes in this case were used as dangerous weapons,” Bernstein wrote. “We therefore vacate the Court of Appeals’ analysis of that issue.”
In dissent, Viviano castigated his colleagues and said the case is “yet another departure by this court from the principle of party presentation and our rules of preservation.”
“In our adversarial system, as a general rule, we rely on the parties to frame the issues, and courts sit as neutral arbiters of the issues presented by the parties,” Viviano wrote. “I would affirm the Court of Appeals on the only issue in this case that was presented by the parties and decided by the lower courts. I would not reverse the Court of Appeals on the basis of an unpreserved issue that was not argued or decided (before the courts).”
