People of Michigan v. Evan Andrew Oslund ( 2023 )

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PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED
March 30, 2023
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v No. 360675
Livingston Circuit Court
EVAN ANDREW OSLUND, LC No. 22-027137-FH
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: HOOD, P.J., and JANSEN and K. F. KELLY, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as on leave granted1 the circuit court order denying his motions to quash
and to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Defendant, a juvenile who is charged as an adult
under the automatic waiver statute, MCL 764.1f, stands charged with assault with intent to do great
bodily harm less than murder (AWIGBH), MCL 750.84(1)(a), on a theory of aiding and abetting.
We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
The facts giving rise to this case began when QD, a 16-year-old boy, started at a new school
following the summer break. QD was befriended by a fellow student, codefendant TI, who invited
QD to hang out with some of TI’s other friends at a skate park near the school. While at the skate
park, TI and codefendant CB attacked QD. They punched him until he fell on the ground and then
began kicking him repeatedly, causing bruising, a concussion, and post-traumatic stress disorder.
A video of the assault circulated around school, and an assistant principal who watched the video
identified QD’s assailants as codefendants. Another student at the school then reported to the
1
This Court denied defendant’s initial application for leave to appeal. People v Oslund,
unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered July 6, 2022 (Docket No. 360675). Defendant
applied for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court remanded the case to this
Court for consideration as on leave granted. People v Oslund, ___ Mich ___; 978 NW2d 119(2022) (Docket No. 164621).
-1-
assistant principal that it was defendant who took the video of the assault. The assistant principal
confronted defendant, who admitted that CB requested that defendant record the assault and send
him the video. All three boys were charged as adults with AWIGBH under the automatic waiver
statute, MCL 764.1f. Defendant filed motions in the circuit court to quash the bindover and to
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction premised on the argument that the prosecution failed to
establish that “the juvenile [was] armed with a dangerous weapon” as required under MCL
764.1f(2)(b). These motions were denied, and this appeal followed.
II. DISCUSSION
Defendant argues that the trial court erroneously concluded that the footwear worn by QD’s
assailants were dangerous weapons for the purposes of the automatic waiver statute. We disagree.
“A circuit court’s decision to grant or deny a motion to quash charges is reviewed de novo
to determine if the district court abused its discretion in binding over a defendant for trial.” People
v Jenkins, 244 Mich App 1, 14; 624 NW2d 457 (2000). “A trial court abuses its discretion when
it selects an outcome that does not fall within the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.”
People v Young, 276 Mich App 446, 448; 740 NW2d 347 (2007). “To the extent that a lower
court’s decision on a motion to quash an information is based upon interpretation of the law,” this
Court reviews the decision de novo. People v Maye, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW2d ___
(2022) (Docket No. 357233); slip op at 3. “A circuit court’s decision with respect to a motion to
quash a bindover order is not entitled to deference because this Court applies the same standard of
review to this issue as the circuit court.” People v Hudson, 241 Mich App 268, 276; 615 NW2d
784 (2000). Therefore, this Court “essentially sits in the same position as the circuit court when
determining whether the district court abused its discretion.” Id.Generally, the family division of the circuit court has exclusive jurisdiction over juveniles
who commit criminal offenses. People v Conat, 238 Mich App 134, 139; 605 NW2d 49 (1999),
citing MCL 712A.1(1)(c); MCL 712A.2(a)(1). However, “an ‘automatic waiver’ process exists
[under MCL 764.1f] whereby prosecutors may choose to ‘waive’ certain juvenile offenders into
the circuit court to be tried as adults.” Conat, 238 Mich App at 140. “The effect of these automatic
waiver provisions is that the prosecutor has discretion whether to charge a juvenile at least fourteen
years of age who commits specified serious felonies as an adult or as a juvenile.” Id. at 141-142.
MCL 764.1f(1) provides:
If the prosecuting attorney has reason to believe that a juvenile 14 years of
age or older but less than 18 years of age has committed a specified juvenile
violation, the prosecuting attorney may authorize the filing of a complaint and
warrant on the charge with a magistrate concerning the juvenile.
Defendant is charged with AWIGBH. Under MCL 764.1f(2)(b), AWIGBH constitutes a specified
juvenile violation, but only “if the juvenile is armed with a dangerous weapon.” The term
“dangerous weapon” is defined, relevant to this case, as including “[a]n object that is likely to
cause death or bodily injury when used as a weapon and that is used as a weapon or carried or
possessed for use as a weapon.” MCL 764.1f(2)(b)(iii).
-2-
The prosecution asserts that the “dangerous weapon” that served as the basis for the
automatic waiver in this case was the footwear worn by QD’s assailants. Defendant argues that,
for the purposes of the juvenile waiver statute, footwear is not a dangerous weapon.
This Court’s primary goal in construing a statute is to determine and give
effect to the intent of the Legislature, turning first to the statutory language to
ascertain that intent. In construing a statute, we interpret defined terms in
accordance with their statutory definitions and undefined terms in accordance with
their ordinary and generally accepted meanings. When statutory language is
unambiguous, judicial construction is not required or permitted because the
Legislature is presumed to have intended the meaning it plainly expressed. [People
v Campbell, 329 Mich App 185, 193-194; 942 NW2d 51 (2019) (quotation marks,
citations, and alteration omitted).]
There does not appear to be any caselaw expanding upon the meaning of the term
“dangerous weapon” in the context of this statute, but there is a body of caselaw expanding upon
the term’s meaning in the context of felonious assault. 2 In People v Goolsby, 284 Mich 375, 378;
279 NW 867 (1938), our Supreme Court held that objects that were not designed for the purpose
of being weapons can nonetheless be dangerous weapons, depending on “whether the
instrumentality was used as a weapon and, when so employed in an assault, dangerous.” In
subsequent cases, this Court has repeatedly held that footwear can be a dangerous weapon for the
purposes of felonious assault. See People v Buford, 69 Mich App 27, 32; 244 NW2d 351 (1976)
(holding that a boot can be a dangerous weapon); see also People v Hale, 96 Mich App 343, 345;
292 NW2d 204 (1980), vacated on other grounds 409 Mich 937 (1980) (holding that a shoe can
be a dangerous weapon).
Defendant argues that this Court should assign the term a different definition under the
automatic waiver statute. “Statutes that address the same subject or share a common purpose are
in pari materia and must be read together as a whole.” People v Anderson, 330 Mich App 189,
197; 946 NW2d 825 (2019) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Felonious assault is governed
by the Michigan Penal Code, MCL 750.1 et seq., and the automatic waiver of juvenile offenders
is governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, MCL 760.1 et seq. “[A]lthough the Penal Code
and the Code of Criminal Procedure were separately enacted and have distinct purposes, the two
codes relate generally to the same thing and must therefore be read in pari materia. . . .” People v
Washington, 501 Mich 342, 354 n 29; 916 NW2d 477 (2018) (quotation marks, citation, and
alteration omitted). “The object of the rule in pari materia is to carry into effect the purpose of
the legislature as found in harmonious statutes on a subject.” Anderson, 330 Mich App at 197
(quotation marks and citation omitted). “This general rule of statutory interpretation requires
courts to examine the statute at issue in the context of related statutes, and statutes that involve the
same subject matter are in pari materia and must be construed together for purposes of determining
legislative intent.” People v Robar, 321 Mich App 106, 120-121; 910 NW2d 328 (2017) (quotation
marks and citation omitted).
2
Under MCL 750.82(1), a person is guilty of a felony if the person “assaults another person with
a . . . dangerous weapon . . . .”
-3-
Because the Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure are in pari materia, they
“must be construed together for purposes of determining legislative intent.” Id. at 120-121
(quotation marks and citation omitted). It follows, therefore, that the Legislature intended that the
term “dangerous weapon” be accorded the same meaning in each statute. This conclusion is further
bolstered when one examines the purpose the term serves in each respective statute. In the Penal
Code, the term is used to denote when a simple assault is elevated to a felonious assault. In the
Code of Criminal Procedure, the term is used to denote when the offense of AWIGBH is serious
enough that the prosecutor may charge a juvenile offender as an adult. In both statutes the severity
of an offense is elevated when it is committed using a dangerous weapon. Because the term is
used to serve the same purpose within statutes that are in pari materia, it should be given the same
meaning in both. Because a shoe is “likely to cause . . . bodily injury when used as a weapon,”
MCL 764.1f(2)(b)(iii), the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant’s motions
to quash the bindover and dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Affirmed.
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
-4-