Michigan Supreme Court dismisses case against teen for filming assault

DETROIT — The Michigan Supreme Court dismissed a 2021 assault case against a Livingston County 16-year-old boy after finding he was not properly charged as an adult and he was not armed with a dangerous weapon when he filmed two other boys assaulting a classmate.

The court found in a 6-1 ruling released Friday that Evan Oslund should not have been charged as an adult with assault with intent to commit great bodily harm because Michigan law requires a minor to be armed with a dangerous weapon to be tried as an adult with that charge.

The Supreme Court granted Oslund's attorney's request to quash the district court's finding that there was enough evidence to stand trial in adult court and sent the case back to Livingston County's juvenile court. Oslund's attorney, Kristina Dunne, said Monday this means Oslund's case is now dismissed. County prosecutors can refile the case in juvenile court if they choose to, Dunne said, but she thinks it would be unlikely.

Dunne said while this is a win for Oslund, she was disappointed the court did not rule further on the issues that led to him being charged as an adult, so there would not be more cases like his in the future.

“(The ruling) leaves it open for another day, another defendant,” Dunne said. “It’s a win for my client…, but it’s not easy for defendants to challenge these things when they’re charged improperly.”

Prosecutors argued Oslund aided and abetted the two boys who assaulted their 16-year-old classmate when he recorded them on his cell phone in 2021. The two other boys also were charged as adults and pleaded guilty.

Judges with Livingston County's district court, circuit court and the Michigan Court of Appeals all found there was evidence of a dangerous weapon in Oslund's case, though the three judge Court of Appeals panel was not unanimous in that decision. But the Supreme Court, who has the final say in Michigan, disagreed.

"We conclude that the lower courts committed an error of law and abused their discretion by finding that the automatic waiver statute applied," Justice Richard Bernstein wrote in the court's majority opinion. "There was no evidence that all of the statutory requirements under MCL 764.1f(2)(b) were met; specifically, the lower courts did not find that defendant was armed with a dangerous weapon during the assault."

Livingston County prosecutors automatically sent Oslund to adult court instead of asking a juvenile court judge to waive the case to adult court, but the Supreme Court's majority found that prosecutors were not legally able to do that given the lack of a dangerous weapon. Livingston County Prosecutor David Reader did not respond immediately Monday to a request for comment.

"If the Legislature had intended to allow the acts of other co-offenders to be transferred to or be imputed to the charged juvenile for the purposes of automatic waiver, it would not have specified that 'the juvenile' must be armed with a dangerous weapon in order for a specified juvenile violation to occur under MCL 764.1f(2)(b)," the court wrote. "Instead, it would have stated only that a dangerous weapon must be used during the incident at issue. The Legislature’s use of the phrase 'the juvenile' therefore expresses an intent to consider only the actions of the charged juvenile in question, and not more broadly consider the mere presence of a dangerous weapon during the incident."

Justice David Viviano dissented from the majority's opinion, noting that the issue the Supreme Court ruled on had not been argued or decided on in the lower courts. The only issue presented to them was whether shoes should count as a dangerous weapon.

"That issue was not argued or decided below, and the district judge did not make any factual findings on it," Viviano wrote. "I would not decide this issue without the benefit of lower-court decision-making. It is a complex issue, and the majority’s opinion raises more questions than it answers.

"Because this issue was not fully vetted below, the majority opinion contains significant gaps. It does not meaningfully engage the prosecutor’s aiding and abetting theory under MCL 767.39; instead, the majority only mentions it in passing. The majority gives no rationale for its conclusion that MCL 767.39 is not controlling here. Nor is it clear what the effect of the majority’s holding will be on other serious crimes, such as home invasion."

In a concurring opinion, Justices Elizabeth Welch and Elizabeth Clement wrote to provide guidance about the procedure for charging a juvenile as an adult. Welch said she hopes the clarifications will minimize "future improper waivers."

"A more nuanced analysis is required when automatic waiver of jurisdiction is sought based on charging the juvenile as an adult with (assault with the intent to do great bodily harm) premised on a theory that the juvenile was 'armed with a dangerous weapon.' MCL 764.1f(2)(b)(iii)," Welch wrote. "This is precisely because 'being armed' is not an element of (assault with the intent to do great bodily harm), MCL 750.84(1), but being 'armed with a dangerous weapon' is a requirement for waiver of the family court’s jurisdiction under MCL 764.1f(2)(b)."