A Parent’s Legal Duty: The Crumbleys’ Culpability for Failing to Stop a School Shooting

by Anna Marchiony, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review Vol. 92

I. Introduction

In January of 2024, trial will begin for James and Jennifer Crumbley (“Crumbleys”), who have each been charged with four counts of involuntary manslaughter in connection to the Oxford School Shooting that took place on November 30, 2021.¹ However, neither James nor Jennifer were present or physically involved in the shooting; rather, their son (“EC”), was the perpetrator. Despite the Crumbleys lack of direct involvement in the actual shooting, it is alleged that their knowledge of EC’s unstable mental health and his access to a gun was a “but-for cause” of the shooting. The prosecution believes that the Crumbleys lack of action to prevent the shooting was “unconscionable” and “criminal.”² Charging the Crumbleys with involuntary manslaughter based on the actions of their child is “exceptionally unusual.”³ While the prosecution may be trying to set an example and pave the way for other jurisdictions to hold parents accountable for egregious failures to act, it is possible that the same goal could be accomplished through more established legal mechanisms.

Part II of this article discusses the background of the Oxford School Shooting, the facts that demonstrate the Crumbleys’ negligence and failure to act, and the charges the Crumbleys are facing. Part II also looks at Michigan’s legal precedent, People v. Ogg,⁴ which provides an established framework for convicting parents of involuntary manslaughter based on neglect of their legal duty of care, as well as at Michigan’s newly enacted gun reform laws. Part III discusses whether the legal framework outlined in People v. Ogg is applicable to the Crumbleys’ case, and analyzes whether the gun reform laws, Senate Bills 79 and 83, effectively hold adults accountable when minors access firearms in the home. Part III concludes by considering the impact that the Crumbleys’ case might have on future cases of a similar nature. Finally, Part IV argues that a charge of involuntary manslaughter premised on the framework outlined in People v. Ogg is the best legal avenue to hold parents accountable.

II. Background

On December 3, 2021, James and Jennifer Crumbley were charged with four counts of involuntary manslaughter as a result of their involvement in the Oxford School Shooting that occurred four days prior.⁵ Although neither parent was present at the school nor pulled the trigger, the charges are based on gross negligence such that the Crumbleys had knowledge of their son’s mental instability and had purchased him the gun used in the shooting, that led to the death of four students at Oxford High School on November 30, 2021.

A. The Allegations against the Crumbleys

Just before 1:00 p.m. on November 30, 2021, fifteen-year-old EC walked into the Oxford High School bathroom. He took a gun out of his backpack, walked out of the bathroom, and opened fire. The school sent out text alerts to the parents of students, notifying them of the shooting.⁶ While other parents called their children and made plans to meet them at local safe spaces, Jennifer Crumbley, mother of EC, texted her son “Don’t do it.”⁷ Immediately, Jennifer told a co-worker that EC “must be the shooter.”⁸ James Crumbley, EC’s father, raced home and searched the house for the firearm he purchased days earlier.⁹ James called 911, expressing concern that EC took the gun and was the school shooter.¹⁰

1. Evidence of the Crumbleys’ Knowledge Regarding EC’s Mental Instability

James and Jennifer Crumbley knew about EC’s declining mental health as early as spring of 2021.¹¹ In March, EC sent various text messages to his parents stating that he saw demons in his home.¹² EC told his parents that someone was in the house turning on lights, flushing toilets, and slamming the door.¹³ He stated that the house was haunted, that he was scared, and that he took a picture of the demon.¹⁴ EC told his parents “maybe it’s just my paranoia;” however, neither James nor Jennifer texted EC back or responded to his concerns.¹⁵ In April, EC told a friend that he was having a mental breakdown.¹⁶ EC told his parents that he was seeing people and hearing voices, and that he needed help.¹⁷ Instead of taking him to a doctor, EC said his parents laughed at him, gave him some pills, and told him to suck it up.¹⁸ EC considered calling 911 to get help for his mental health, but he thought his parents would be upset with him for doing so.¹⁹

By the fall of 2021, EC’s mental health had not improved. In October, EC continued to text his friend about his poor mental health.²⁰ By the end of the month, EC’s friend moved out of town, his dog died, and his grandparents passed away.²¹ Jennifer acknowledged that EC recently suffered a lot of loss and expressed concern for how EC was handling it.²² However, rather than seek out mental health treatment,²³ on November 26, 2021, James took EC to purchase a gun. The next day, Jennifer took EC to a shooting range.²⁴ On November 29, 2021, Oxford High School called Jennifer and told her that a teacher saw EC looking up ammunition on his phone during school hours.²⁵ Jennifer responded by telling EC that she was not mad, and he has “to learn not to get caught.”²⁶

On the morning of the shooting, Jennifer and James received a voicemail from the Oxford High School counselor, informing them that EC was watching videos of shootings on his phone and that he drew and wrote disturbing images and messages on his math assignment.²⁷ The Crumbleys arrived at Oxford High School for a meeting with the counselor and were told that EC needed immediate mental health treatment based on a risk assessment conducted with EC that morning.²⁸ Despite being told that EC should receive treatment that day, the Crumbleys declined to do so.²⁹ About fifteen minutes into the meeting, Jennifer “abruptly” asked if the meeting was over.³⁰ Neither parent hugged or said goodbye to EC when they left.³¹ Less than two hours later, EC open fired, killing four and injuring six.³²

2. Evidence that the Crumbleys Purchased a Gun for EC

Not only were the Crumbleys aware of EC’s unstable mental health, but the evidence suggests they also purchased EC the gun that was ultimately used in the school shooting. On November 26, 2021, James and EC went to purchase a SIG Sauer firearm.³³ Although the gun was in James’ name, EC was the intended owner. EC admitted that he picked the gun out himself and that his parents purchased the firearm for him.³⁴ EC posted a photo with the gun on Instagram with a caption stating “Just got my new beauty today.”³⁵ When Jennifer took Ethan to the shooting range on November 27, she posted on Instagram that they were “testing out [EC’s] new X-mas present.”³⁶ EC also posted on Instagram, captioning the photo “Took my new SIG out to the range today.”³⁷

The Crumbleys did little to prevent EC from accessing the gun. While the parents had a gun safe, the password for the safe was “000.”³⁸ Under oath, EC stated that he accessed the firearm from an unlocked container in his home.³⁹

B. The Charges and Michigan Law

EC plead guilty to a total of twenty-four charges, including terrorism, murder, assault with intent to murder, and possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony.⁴⁰ In an extremely rare move, the prosecution also charged James and Jennifer Crumbley with four counts of involuntary manslaughter. To convict a person of involuntary manslaughter in Michigan, a jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt that (i) the defendant caused the death of the decedent, meaning the decedent died as a result of the defendant’s actions, (ii) that the defendant acted in a grossly negligent manner, and (iii) the defendant did not have a legal excuse or justification for causing the death.⁴¹

In the Crumbleys’ case, the key issue is whether they acted in a grossly negligent manner. Gross negligence is defined as “willfully disregarding the results to others that might follow from an act or failure to act.”⁴² In order to find a defendant grossly negligent, the jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt that (i) the defendant knew there was a situation that required him to take ordinary care to avoid injuring another, (ii) the defendant could have avoided injuring another by using ordinary care, and (iii) the defendant failed to use ordinary care to prevent injuring another when, to a reasonable person, it was apparent that the result was likely to be a serious injury.⁴³ Additionally, “negligence” means the defendant failed to use reasonable care when the foreseeable consequences of their conduct was the harm or threat of harm to others.⁴⁴

The prosecution believes that the Crumbleys were grossly negligent. They argue the Crumbleys could have foreseen the tragic shooting based on their knowledge of EC’s mental health concerns and his access to a deadly weapon.⁴⁵ Also, the Crumbleys failed to take ordinary care to prevent the shooting, as they failed to seek mental health treatment for EC or remove EC from school on November 30. Additionally, they did not check EC’s backpack for the gun or notify the school of EC’s access to a gun.⁴⁶ The Crumbleys should have ensured proper gun storage by securing it in their home.⁴⁷

The defense conceded that the Crumbleys could have done more to address EC’s mental health.⁴⁸ However, the defense believes that the Crumbleys could not have foreseen EC’s actions based solely on what they knew about his mental health.⁴⁹

The District Court found that the prosecution demonstrated by a probable cause standard that EC was a danger to the community, that the danger was apparent, and that the Crumbleys “neglected to diligently address and/or divert that danger,” resulting in the mass shooting.⁵⁰ On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Michigan affirmed the District Court’s holding and found there was sufficient evidence of causation for the Crumbleys to stand trial on the charges of involuntary manslaughter.⁵¹ The Court of Appeals stated that “but for defendants’ decision to purchase their mentally disturbed son a handgun, their failure to properly secure the gun, and most importantly, their refusal to remove EC from school when he made overt threats to hurt other people,” the shooting would not have occurred.⁵² The Court emphasized that the “[d]efendants’ actions and inactions were inexorably intertwined with EC’s actions,” and a jury could reasonably conclude that EC’s actions were not only foreseeable, but that the Crumbleys’ own conduct or lack thereof increased the foreseeability of EC’s actions.⁵³

C. Other Legal Avenues to Hold Parents Accountable

Though charging a parent for the deaths of third parties based on their own child’s perpetration of a school shooting is an unprecedented move,⁵⁴ the idea of holding parents accountable when their neglectful actions result in tragedy is not new. In Michigan, there are at least two other options that the prosecution might consider that could result in a similar penalty as involuntary manslaughter based on gross negligence.

1. Accountability Based on a Parent’s Legal Duty

Although charging a parent with involuntary manslaughter based on the crimes of their child is a new step in the law, the legal system does have a history of holding parents responsible both for contributing to their child’s delinquency and for neglecting their child.⁵⁵ In Michigan, MCL § 750.145 defines the law for contributing to the neglect or delinquency of a minor. A person is guilty of violating MCL § 750.145 if their actions or words result in the neglect or delinquency of a minor, causing the minor to come into the custody of the juvenile division of probate court.⁵⁶ Under MCL § 712A.2, probate court obtains custody over minors whose parents neglect or abandon their basic needs, which includes neglecting the minor’s health, morals, and mental well-being.⁵⁷ Neglect occurs when the person responsible for the child’s health and welfare “fail[s] to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical care.”⁵⁸

Typically, a person who contributes to the neglect or delinquency of a minor is guilty only of a misdemeanor.⁵⁹ In a case such as the Crumbleys, a misdemeanor conviction hardly seems adequate. However, Michigan has established legal precedent that permits the prosecution to use the law of contributing to delinquency and neglect of a minor to charge a negligent parent with involuntary manslaughter.⁶⁰ In People v. Ogg, the defendant failed to check on her four and five-year-old children who were locked in a windowless room on the upper floor of the house.⁶¹ After the defendant left the home with the children still locked in the room, a fire broke out and the children died from carbon monoxide poisoning.⁶² The defendant was charged with involuntary manslaughter.⁶³ The prosecution asserted that “where a death follows from the negligent or criminal omission to perform a legal duty, the person upon whom the legal duty is imposed is guilty of involuntary manslaughter.”⁶⁴The Court of Appeals read MCL § 750.145 and § 712A.2 together and held that the defendant had a legal duty to provide for the necessary care of her children.⁶⁵ By failing to uphold that legal duty, the defendant violated MCL § 750.145 and § 712A.2, which “constitute[d] the commission of an unlawful act which, where death ensues therefrom, likewise constitutes involuntary manslaughter.”⁶⁶

2. Accountability Based on Gun Reform Laws

On April 13, 2023, in response to the tragedy of the Oxford School Shooting, Michigan enacted Senate Bill 79 (“SB 79”), known as a child access prevention law. SB 79 requires gun owners to keep firearms unloaded, locked with a locking device, and stored in a locked container when a minor is or is likely to be on the premises.⁶⁷ Violating this requirement can result in penalties ranging from a $500 fine to imprisonment of fifteen years, depending on the severity of the violation and on the level of injury that occurs as a result of the minor’s access to the gun.⁶⁸ SB 79 § 9(6) outlines the highest penalty for violating the law, which occurs when a minor accesses an improperly stored firearm, discharges it, and kills either themselves or another person, resulting in up to fifteen years in prison and/or a fine of up to $10,000.⁶⁹

In addition to SB 79, Michigan also enacted Senate Bill 83 (“SB 83”), known as an extreme risk protection order or “red flag” law. SB 83 permits parents, family members, health professionals, and law enforcement to petition the court to remove guns from individuals who are a danger to themselves or others.⁷⁰ A petitioner must demonstrate to the court that the respondent is likely to use a firearm to cause serious harm to themselves or others in the near future, and that the respondent has made threats or engaged in actions that demonstrate that likelihood.⁷¹ The bill outlines at least twelve factors that a court must consider when granting or denying the protection order.⁷² These factors include evidence of mental illness or emotional disturbance, the purchase of a firearm within the previous 180 days, and any other relevant factors.⁷³ Though SB 83 imposes criminal penalties on a person who refuses to comply with a granted protection order,⁷⁴ it does not impose any liability on a person who fails to request a protection order or on a court for failure to grant a protection order.

III. Discussion

When a tragedy such as a school shooting happens, the community rightfully seeks answers regarding what happened and why. Though parents of the shooter often face scrutiny for “missing warning signs,”⁷⁵ it is “unheard of” for parents to be charged criminally for the actions of their child.⁷⁶ While some parents have faced prosecution when their child harms others with a gun,⁷⁷ these instances are few and far between, and the current Michigan case is the first time that parents have been charged with involuntary manslaughter for their child’s actions.⁷⁸

Given the novelty of the charges, it is unclear whether the prosecution will succeed in seeking justice on behalf of the victims of the Oxford School Shooting. While many believe that the parents should face some kind of accountability for their role in the shooting, others think that the prosecution is “stretch[ing] the law to fit the evil,”⁷⁹ and charges of involuntary manslaughter are improper. Therefore, it is necessary to determine whether other legal avenues, such as the People v. Ogg framework and Senate Bills 79 and 83, can be used to hold the Crumbleys accountable for their part in the Oxford School Shooting and whether those options could be viable in similar circumstances.

A. Using People v. Ogg and Contributing to the Delinquency or Neglect of a Minor

In the Crumbleys’ case, the prosecution could use the framework that was adopted in People v. Ogg. EC’s parents had a legal duty to provide EC with necessary care, which includes mental health treatment. Although neglecting a child’s mental health is not expressly provided for in the state’s definition of neglect, the Children’s Protective Services Manual of the Department of Health & Human Services identifies failure to obtain necessary mental health care as a form of medical neglect.⁸⁰ Therefore, the Crumbleys repeated failure to obtain necessary mental health care for EC constitutes medical neglect. In addition to neglect of EC, the Crumbleys could also be seen as contributing to EC’s delinquent and criminal behavior under MCL § 750.145 by purchasing him the gun. Thus, the Crumbleys violated both the neglect and delinquency components of § 750.145. Since the violation constitutes the commission of an unlawful act, and death occurred as a result of the violation, the Crumbleys can be charged with involuntary manslaughter under the People v. Ogg framework.⁸¹

Using this legal precedent may ease the prosecution’s burden, as § 750.145 does not contain a required mens rea or mental state. Unlike involuntary manslaughter and gross negligence, which requires showing that the defendant acted willfully and had knowledge of the danger to others, § 750.145 is silent with respect to mens rea. This means a violation of § 750.145 requires only a showing of recklessness, or § 750.145 could be strict liability. Either would be an easier burden to prove than that of involuntary manslaughter. The only issue with using the People v. Ogg framework is that the Crumbleys’ case could be distinguished since their neglect did not lead to the death of their own child. However, a fact finder may be more inclined to find in favor of the prosecution in the current case, since not only did the Crumbleys’ actions and inactions result in the neglect and delinquency of their own child, but their behavior also demonstrated a lack of consideration for other children in the community, leading to the death of four, the injury of six, and the traumatization of countless others.

B. Senate Bill 79 and 83: Gun Control and Involuntary Manslaughter

Had Senate Bill 79 been enacted in 2021 when the Crumbleys were charged with involuntary manslaughter, it is likely that they would have been charged under SB 79 § 9(6). Under the specific facts of the Crumbleys’ case, the prosecution likely could prove that James and Jennifer did not store the firearm used in the Oxford School Shooting in a locked box or container as required by SB 79 § (1)(a), which caused the death of four individuals. In fact, EC expressly said that he accessed the firearm from an unlocked container in the home.⁸²

Though SB 79 seems comparable to the charge of involuntary manslaughter with regards to its punitive consequences,⁸³ the ambiguities of SB 79 make it an unreliable tool to hold parents accountable when their child commits horrific crimes. In fact, if the facts of the Crumbleys’ case were changed even slightly, then SB 79 may not apply. First, the Crumbleys did have a gun safe⁸⁴ and, had they used it, they would not have been in violation of SB 79. While the effectiveness of the Crumbleys’ safe is debatable, given that the code was “000,”⁸⁵ SB 79 does not implement any requirements concerning the difficulty of bypassing a passcode or lock. Additionally, SB 79 does not specify whether minors are permitted to know the passcode or the location of a key. Second, the requirement that the firearm be kept unloaded and locked with a locking device would have done little to prevent EC from operating the firearm. EC knew how to load the gun, fire it, and take it apart.⁸⁶ Finally, while SB 79 addresses the devastating impact that access to guns has on American schools, it does nothing to address the growing need for mental health treatment for children. Parents still have a responsibility to ensure that their children’s mental health needs are met, and the Crumbleys’ case puts the impact of neglecting this responsibility on full display. SB 79 does not address the various other ways in which a mentally unstable teenager can cause harm to others. Even if EC had not been able to access his gun on November 30, he still may have obtained other deadly weapons and inflicted devastating harm on others.

SB 83 attempts to provide a layer of protection and prevent those with mental illness from accessing guns. However, it is ineffective as a tool for accountability. First, SB 83 relies on parents to seek out a protection order, which the Crumbleys were unwilling to do. Alternatively, the school counselor could have petitioned for a protection order; however, the Crumbleys failed to inform the school counselor of EC’s access to a gun. Second, while the Crumbleys or the counselor could have requested a protection order, the court has discretion regarding whether to grant it. Given the newness of the bill, it is unclear how courts will respond and make decisions.⁸⁷ Third, it is unclear whether SB 83 will overcome potential Due Process and Second Amendment challenges.⁸⁸ Finally, SB 83 is a tool for family members and professionals to prevent access to guns and potential harm as a result of that access. SB 83 does not penalize a failure to request an extreme risk protection order, even if it was clear that one should have been requested.

C. The Impact of People v. Crumbley

While gun reform advocates are happy with the state’s decision to charge the Crumbleys with involuntary manslaughter,⁸⁹ others worry that this is a dangerous precedent to set.⁹⁰ If the Crumbleys are convicted of the charges, it is likely that other jurisdictions will follow suit and file similar charges in similar situations. But what will constitute a “similar situation?” The prosecution in the Crumbleys’ case notes that not every active shooter situation should result in criminal prosecution of the child’s guardian, but the facts in the Crumbleys’ case are “so egregious” that criminal prosecution was warranted.⁹¹ The defense, however, expresses concern that the question will become “when [does] a parent [] cross the subjective line of ‘good parenting’ and render [themselves] criminally liable for the independent acts of a teenager.”⁹² Other legal scholars agree, noting that the prosecution is attempting to “set a standard to say that parents who are bad parents are responsible for the acts of their children. And bad parenting is not a crime.”⁹³

The Court of Appeals addressed this question in People v. Crumbley, stating that whether the decision in the Crumbleys’ case is applied to future parents is fact specific.⁹⁴ Whether other parents’ negligence is as closely tied to the egregious acts of their child or whether the warning signs were as obvious must be subjected to the test of “reasonable foreseeability,” which is applied on a case-by-case basis.⁹⁵

Ultimately, whether a person’s “bad parenting” is “egregious” enough will be a question for the fact finder. One factor a fact finder must consider is whether the parents complied with laws such as SB 79 or attempted to obtain an extreme risk protection order under SB 83. Another factor might be whether the parents were aware of any mental health concerns and what steps they did or did not take to address those concerns. Additionally, fact finders might look at whether the parents followed the professional advice of school personnel or medical professionals when making decisions related to the wellbeing of their children and the safety of others around them. Finally, fact finders must consider the accessibility of services for the child. In a time when nearly twenty percent of children have some kind of mental health disorder,⁹⁶ it is increasingly difficult to find services. There may be a lack of services, long waiting lists, or high costs that preclude a parent from accessing mental health services for their children.⁹⁷ All of these factors should be balanced when determining the culpability of a parent for the crimes of their child.

IV. Conclusion

The criminal prosecution of James and Jennifer Crumbley for the actions of their son, EC, in the Oxford School Shooting is a bold step for the prosecution, and it is one that is meant to send a message. The goal of this legal move is to seek justice for the victims of the shooting, but also to demonstrate that parents can and should be held accountable when their own actions or inactions result in their child committing heinous crimes.

The prosecution charged the Crumbleys with involuntary manslaughter based on their gross negligence. While the courts seem to agree that there is evidence of gross negligence, the novelty of the charge makes it difficult to predict the outcome. Therefore, the prosecution should have considered using the legal framework set forth in People v. Ogg, which allows for a conviction of involuntary manslaughter based on a parent’s neglect of their child and failure to perform their legal duty as a parent. Using People v. Ogg could make the conviction seem like less of a legal leap and more likely to garner support. In future cases, the prosecution might consider using SB 79 to hold parents accountable when their children access firearms in the home. However, since SB 79 leaves open many questions regarding the requirements of safe storage, the courts will need to clear up these grey areas before SB 79 truly becomes a useful legal tool for accountability.

Cover Photo by Bermix Studio on Unsplash

Anna Marchiony

References

1
Cassidy Johncox, Trial of Oxford Shooter’s Parents Scheduled for January 2024: What to Know, Click on Detroit(Oct. 4, 2023), https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/local/2023/10/04/trial-for-oxford-shooters-parents-scheduled-for-january-2024/.
2
Theresa Waldrop & Mallika Kallingal, What Legal Analysts Say About Charges Against Parents in Michigan School Shooting, CNN (Dec. 4, 2021), https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/03/us/parents-michigan-school-shooting-suspect-charges/index.html.
3
Id.
4
People v. Ogg, 26 Mich. App. 372 (1970).
5
Jon Jackson, Why Ethan Crumbley’s Parents Face Manslaughter Charges When Only One Allegedly Bought Gun, Newsweek (Dec. 13, 2021), https://www.newsweek.com/why-ethan-crumbleys-parents-face-manslaughter-charges-when-only-one-allegedly-bought-gun-1658951.
6
People v. Crumbley, Nos. 362210, 362211, 2023 Mich. App. LEXIS 2108, at *17-18 (Mich. Ct. App. Mar. 23, 2023).
7
Id.
8
Id.
9
Id.
10
Id.
11
Crumbley, 2023 Mich. App. LEXIS 2108, at *2-3.
12
Id. at *3.
13
Cassidy Johncox, Here’s the Text Sessage Timeline Between Oxford Shooter, Parents, Friend Leading Up to Shooting, Click on Detroit (Mar. 24, 2023), https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/local/2023/03/24/heres-the-text-message-timeline-between-oxford-shooter-his-parents-friend-leading-up-to-shooting/.
14
Id.
15
Crumbley, 2023 Mich. App. LEXIS 2108, at *3.
16
Id. at *5.
17
Id.
18
Id.
19
Id.
20
Crumbley, 2023 Mich. App. LEXIS 2108, at *6.
21
Id. at *6.
22
Id.
23
Id. The evidence considered by the court indicated that James and Jennifer were not considering finding EC any help for his declining mental health.
24
Id. at *9.
25
Crumbley, 2023 Mich. App. LEXIS 2108, at *9-10.
26
Id. at *10-11.
27
Id. at *12-13. EC‘s drawings included both a gun and a person bleeding from bullet wounds. He also wrote “the thoughts won’t stop, help me,” “my life is useless,” “the world is dead,” and “blood everywhere” on the math assignment.
28
Id. at *15.
29
Id.
30
Crumbley, 2023 Mich. App. LEXIS 2108, at *15.
31
Id.
32
Id. at *17.
33
Id. at *7-8.
34
Cassidy Johncox, Oxford High School Shooter Pleads Guilty to 24 Felony Charges, Click on Detroit (Oct. 24, 2022), https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/local/2022/10/24/oxford-high-school-shooter-pleads-guilty-to-24-felony-charges/.
35
Crumbley, 2023 Mich. App. LEXIS 2108 at *8.
36
Id. at *9.
37
Id.
38
Id. at *20.
39
Lauren del Valle, Holly Yan, Yon Pamrenze & Jean Casarez, Teen Pleads Guilty to Terrorism and Murder Charges After Michigan School Shooting That Killed 4 Students, CNN (Oct. 24, 2022), https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/24/us/ethan-crumbley-plea-oxford-michigan-shooting-monday/index.html.
40
Johncox, supra note 1.
41
M Crim JI 16.10 Involuntary Manslaughter. https://www.courts.michigan.gov/siteassets/rules-instructions-administrative-orders/jury-instructions/criminal/current/criminal-jury-instructions-responsive-html5.zip/index.html#rhtocid=_16_11&t=Criminal_Jury_Instructions%2FCrim_Jury_Ch_16%2FM_Crim_JI_16.10_Involuntary_Manslaughter.htm%23952577.
42
M. Crim JI 16.18 Gross Negligence. https://www.courts.michigan.gov/siteassets/rules-instructions-administrative-orders/jury-instructions/criminal/current/criminal-jury-instructions-responsive-html5.zip/index.html#rhtocid=_16_19&t=Criminal_Jury_Instructions%2FCrim_Jury_Ch_16%2FM_Crim_JI_16.18_Gross_Negligence.htm.
43
Id.
44
Mich. Comp. Laws § 8.9(10)(e) (2015).
45
People v. Crumbley, Nos. 362210, 362211, 2023 Mich. App. LEXIS 2108, at *19-20 (Mich. Ct. App. Mar. 23, 2023) (alleging that the Crumbleys’ “grossly negligent conduct caused the deaths of four victims by: storing his or her firearm and its ammunition so as to allow access to the firearm and ammunition by his or her minor child or the grossly negligent failure to perform the following legal duty, to wit: failure to exercise reasonable care to control his or her minor child so as to prevent him from intentionally harming others or from so conducting himself so as to create an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to others knowing that he or she has the ability to control his or her child and knowing of the necessity and opportunity to do so[.]” ).
46
Johncox, supra note 1.
47
Id.
48
Id.
49
Id.
50
Crumbley, 2023 Mich. App. LEXIS 2108, at *20-21.
51
Id.
52
Id. at *29-30.
53
Id. at *33, *35-36.
54
Courtney Bennett, New Motion Filed in State’s Top Court Has New Details Into Crumbley Case, Mid-Michigan Now (June 27, 2023), https://midmichigannow.com/news/local/new-motion-filed-in-states-top-court-has-new-details-into-crumbley-case; Jack Healy, Behind the Charges Faced by the Parents of the Michigan Shooting Suspect, N.Y. Times (Dec. 3, 2021), https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/03/us/crumbley-parents-charged-michigan-shooting.html (describing how prosecutors considered charging the stepfather of a fifteen-year-old school shooter, but ultimately chose not to due to concerns about being able to prove the standard required under Kentucky law).
55
Charleston School of Law, Parental Responsibility Laws by State (2022), https://charlestonlaw.libguides.com/c.php?g=1226408&p=8986064.
56
Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.145 (1948).
57
Mich. Comp. Laws § 712A.2(b)(1) (2021).
58
Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.622(k)(i) (2022).
59
§ 750.145.
60
People v. Ogg, 26 Mich. App. 372 (1970).
61
Id. at 374-77.
62
Id. at 376.
63
Id. at 377.
64
Id. at 381 (citing People v. Ryczek, 224 Mich 106 (1923)).
65
Id. at 381-83.
66
Id.
67
2023 Mich. Pub. Acts 17, http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2023-2024/publicact/pdf/2023-PA-0017.pdf.
68
2023 Mich. Pub. Acts 17, http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2023-2024/publicact/pdf/2023-PA-0017.pdf; House Fiscal Agency, Legislative Analysis(2023), https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2023-2024/billanalysis/House/pdf/2023-HLA-0079-74F9B6AC.pdf.
69
2023 Mich. Pub. Acts 17 § 9(6), http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2023-2024/publicact/pdf/2023-PA-0017.pdf.
70
2023 Mich. Pub. Acts 38, http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2023-2024/publicact/pdf/2023-PA-0038.pdf.
71
2023 Mich. Pub. Acts 38 § 5(3), http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2023-2024/publicact/pdf/2023-PA-0038.pdf.
72
2023 Mich. Pub. Acts 38 § 7, http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2023-2024/publicact/pdf/2023-PA-0038.pdf.
73
2023 Mich. Pub. Acts 38 § 7(b), (j), (l), http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2023-2024/publicact/pdf/2023-PA-0038.pdf.
74
2023 Mich. Pub. Acts 38 § 19, http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2023-2024/publicact/pdf/2023-PA-0038.pdf.
75
Healy, supra note 54.
76
Bennett, supra note 54.
77
April Morganroth, Megan Cassidy, and Logan Newman, Parents Arrested After 9-Year-Old Boy Fatally Shot In Head in Phoenix, AZ Central (Mar. 21, 2017), https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2017/03/21/parents-arrested-after-9-year-old-boy-fatally-shot-head-phoenix/99473626/ (a mother was arrested on four counts of child abuse after her two-year-old accessed a firearm and shot and killed his nine-year-old brother); Associated Press, Toddler Fatally Shoots Mom On Zoom Call After Finding Gun; Father Charged With Negligent Manslaughter, USA TODAY (Oct. 13, 2021), https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/10/13/toddler-fatally-shoots-mother-zoom-call-after-finding-gun/8438422002/ (a father was charged with negligent manslaughter and unsafe storage of a firearm after his toddler found a loaded firearm in his backpack and fatally shot his mother); Healy, supra note 54 (prosecutors considered charging the stepfather of a fifteen-year-old school shooter, but ultimately chose not to due to concerns about being able to prove the standard required under Kentucky law).
78
Bennett, supra note 54.
79
Tresa Baldas, Michigan Supreme Court Rfuses to Hear Case of James and Jennifer Crumbley, Detroit Free Press (Oct. 3, 2023), https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2023/10/03/michigan-supreme-court-james-jennifer-crumbley-appeal-case/71001197007/.
80
Children’s Protective Services Manual, Definitions, Responsibilities, and Maltreatment Types, State of Mich. Dept. of Health and Hum. Services, at 17-18 (Aug. 1, 2023), https://dhhs.michigan.gov/olmweb/ex/PS/Public/PSM/711-2.pdf.
81
People v. Ogg, 26 Mich. App. 372, 381-83 (1970) (“Involuntary manslaughter is the killing of another without maline and unintentionally, but in doing some unlawful act not amounting to a felony nor naturally tending to cause death or great bodily harm, or in negligently doing some act lawful in itself, or by the negligent omission to perform a legal duty.”) (citing People v. Ryczek, 224 Mich 106 (1923)).
82
Valle et. al., supra note 39.
83
Mich. Penal Code, § 750.321 Manslaughter, http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(daekxd1xn1ctz45nnq4xhil0))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-750-321. “Any person who shall commit the crime of manslaughter shall be guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison, not more than 15 years or by fine of not more than 7,500 dollars, or both, at the discretion of the court.”; SB 79 § 9(6), 2023 Leg., 102d Sess. (Mich. 2023), http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2023-2024/publicact/pdf/2023-PA-0017.pdf. “If an individual violates subsection (1) or (2) by failing to store or leave a firearm in the required manner and, as a result of the violation, a minor obtains the firearm, discharges it and inflicts death upon the minor or any other individual, the individual is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 15 years or a fine of not more than $10,000.00, or both.”
84
People v. Crumbley, Nos. 362210, 362211, 2023 Mich. App. LEXIS 2108, at *20 (Mich. Ct. App. Mar. 23, 2023).
85
Id.
86
Id. at *8-9.
87
David Nacht, Understanding the “Red Flag” Law and Senate Bill 83, NachtLaw (Apr. 21, 2023), https://www.nachtlaw.com/blog/2023/04/understanding-the-red-flag-law-and-senate-bill-83/.
88
Andrew Willinger, The Emerging Second Amendment Civil-Criminal Distinction and Red Flag Laws, Duke Center for Firearms L. (Mar. 15, 2023), https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2023/03/the-emerging-second-amendment-civil-criminal-distinction-and-red-flag-laws/.
89
Healy, supra note 54.
90
Baldas, supra note 79.
91
Healy, supra note 54.
92
Baldas, supra note 79.
93
Bennett, supra note 54.
94
People v. Crumbley, Nos. 362210, 362211, 2023 Mich. App. LEXIS 2108, at *36-37 (Mich. Ct. App. Mar. 23, 2023).
95
Id.
96
Improving Access to Care, Center for Disease Control (Mar. 8, 2023), https://www.cdc.gov/childrensmentalhealth/access.html#ref.
97
Improving Access to Children’s Mental Health Care, Center for Disease Control (Mar. 8, 2023), https://www.cdc.gov/childrensmentalhealth/access.html#ref.