11/14/2022 12:57 PM ¥ & 5 2 € 5 3 3 2 2 Ss 3 ° 2 FILED Received for STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF OAKLAND. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff, v CR 2022-279506-FC HON. KWAME ROWE ETHAN ROBERT CRUMBLEY, Defendant, ae ! KAREN D. McDONALD (P59083) AMY M. HOPP (P48872) OAKLAND COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY — ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT 1200 NORTH TELEGRAPH ROAD. P.O, BOX 941 PONTIAC, MI 48341 TROY, MI 48099-0941 PAULETTE MICHEL LOFTIN (P71982) DEBORAH H. MCKELVY (P44157) ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT COURT-APPOINTED GAL 145 8. LIVERNOIS RD., #183 1432 MARYLAND BLVD. ROCHESTER, MI 48307-1837 BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009-1928 MOTION TO SENTENCE DEFENDANT TO IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PARO) The People hereby request that Defendant be sentenced to imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole pursuant to MCL 769.25, stating as follows: 1. Defendant has been convicted in this case of Terrorism Causing Death, four counts of First-Degree Premediated Murder, seven counts of Assault with Intent to Murder, and twelve counts of Felony Firearm, 2. Defendant was under the age of 18 at the time of the offense. 3. MCL 769.25(9), effective March 4, 2014, states that a defendant convicted of first- degree felony murder committed while under the age of 18 shall be sentenced to either (a)nonparolable life, or (b) a prison term for which the maximum term shall be not less than 60 years and the minimum term shall be not less than 25 years or more than 40 years. 4, The People request that Defendant be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. 5. The People make this written request within 21 days of Defendant's conviction, as required by MCL 769.25(3). Pursuant to the statute, Defendant must file a response to this motion within 14 days, MCL 769,25(5). 6. _Indeciding whether to impose a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole or a term of years, this Court “shall consider the factors listed in Miller v Alabama, 576 US __3 183 L Ed 2d 407; 132 $ Ct 2455 (2012), and may consider any other criteria relevant to its decision, including the individual’s record while incarcerated,” MCL 769.25(6). The following non-exclusive list of factors should guide this Court’s decision: + The defendant’s character and record, + The circumstances of the offense, including the extent of the defendant's participation and the way familial and peer pressure may have affected the defendant, + The defendant’s chronological age, + The defendant's background and mental and emotional development, + The defendant’s family and home environment, + Whether the defendant might have been charged and convicted of a lesser offense if not for incompetencies associated with youth, + The defendant’s potential for rehabilitation, and + The defendant’s record while incarcerated. [Miller, 132 $ Ct at 2467-2468; MCL 769.25(6).] ‘This Court may order defendant to undergo a psychological evaluation if it determines that such an evaluation would assist the Court in considering the Miller factors.7. In People v Taylor, __ Mich __;__ NW3d_ (2022) (Docket No. 154994); slip op at 11, the Michigan Supreme Court held “that there is a rebuttable presumption against the imposition of juvenile LWOP sentences in Michigan and that it is the prosecution’s burden to overcome this presumption by clear and convincing evidence at a Miller heating.” 8. Taylor further held, however, that there is nof “one particular fact that a prosecutor must prove to establish that LWOP is appropriate.” Jd. at __; slip op at 15 (explaining that, “[{Jor example, the prosecutor need nof prove that the defendant is ‘permanently incorrigible” or ‘irreparably corrupt’ ”) (emphasis added). 9. Rather than a proving a par lar fact, “it is the prosecutor’s burden to overcome the presumption that LWOP is disproportionate.” Id. at __; slip op at 16, See also id. at___; slip op at 17 (“In doing so, the prosecutor must prove facts and circumstances that rebut the presumption against LWOP by the well-known standard of clear and convincing evidence.”). In other words, the prosecutor must prove facts and circumstances that demonstrate LWOP is a proportionate sentence. 10. As further explained by Taylor, The trial court, in tum, must consider all the evidence before it and determine whether the presumption has been rebutted in order to impose LWOP. This is an exercise in discretion, not a fact-finding mission. See Skinner, 502 Mich at 116 n II (“Those terms—consider, justify, outweigh—reflect a process of assigning weights to competing interests, and then determining . . . which of those interests predominates.”), quoting United States v Gabrion, 719 F3d 511, 532 (CA 6, 2013). (Taylor, __ Mich at__; slip op at 17.] 11. A sentence of imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole is appropriate in this case, Defendant has been convicted of Terrorism Causing Death, four counts of First- Degree Premediated Murder, seven counts of Assault with Intent to Murder, as well as twelveput forth before this Honorable Court at the Miller hearing tentatively scheduled for February 9, 2023. 12, The People incorporate by reference the police case reports, forensic and physical evidence, the surveillance footage, and all exhibits tendered to this Court during the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Review hearings that have occurred on February 22, 2022; March 24, 2022; April 21, 2022; May 19, 2022; June 23, 2022; July 22, 2022; August 25, 2022; ‘September 22, 2022; and October 20, 2022, respectively. 13, Because the People are requesting a sentence of nonparolable life, this Court should proceed with a Miller hearing, at which facts, data, and circumstances pertinent to the sentencing decision will be presented and explored, MCL 769.25(6) & (7). At the hearing, this Court “may consider...any evidence presented at the sentencing hearing.” MCL 769.25(7). After considering the evidence, “the court shall specify on the record the aggravating and mitigating circumstances considered by the court and the court’s reasons supporting the sentence imposed.” MCL 769.25(7). WHEREFORE, the People request that this Honorable Court proceed with a Miller hearing and, at the conclusion of that hearing, find that a sentence of life without the possibility of parole is a constitutionally proportionate sentence. Respectfully submitted, KAREN D. McDONALD PROSECUTING ATTORNEY By: 4 (k— Mare A. Keast (P69842) Assistant Prosecuting Attorney DATED: — NOVEMBER 14, 2022