Woman Accused of Leaving 2 Children in Car Can be Charged With Murder (**IF** Intent Is Proven)

Freep.com | 6/29/04

[11th Earl of Mar]

LANSING, Mich. (AP) -- Prosecutors can pursue felony murder charges against a Detroit woman accused of leaving her children inside a sweltering car but must prove that she intended to harm them, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

http://www.freep.com/news/statewire/sw100304_20040629.htm

[martin_fierro]

The court, in an unanimous decision, disagreed with Oakland County prosecutors' contention that first-degree child abuse should be considered a "general intent" crime. That would require proof only of Tarajee Maynor's intent to leave her two children in the car, and not specific proof that she intended to harm them.

I thought that if a death was to be prosecuted as Murder I under the Felony Murder Rule, that

1. the death had to have been the proximate result of an enumerated felony (burglary, rape, armed robbery, arson, kidnapping, or other specified felony -- child endangerment?); and
2. the only intent needed to be shown was the intent to commit the underlying felony, NOT to harm the proximate victim.

Having a hard time understanding the Michigan Supremes' decision.

[grellis]

I saw this on the 11:00 news last night. She left her children in the car for 3.5 hours while she had her hair done. I'm not even going to touch on the legalities that the case entails. What I want to know is this: in those 3.5 hours, didn't anyone notice the kids in the car? They must have been screaming to wake the dead for a while before they lost consciousness and died.

The whole story makes me want to barf.

[apackof2]

Everyone was busy with the inportant things in life like getting their hair done

This is sickening, how is any prosecutor going to prove she intended to harm her kids?
Unless she has a history of abuse or he/she can dig up some witnesses that can tesify she told them she wanted her kids gone but still intent in this case seems to me a tough one

[apackof2]

THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT)

Act 328 of 1931

***** 750.316.amended THIS AMENDED SECTION IS EFFECTIVE JUNE 11, 2004 *****

750.316.amended First degree murder; penalty; definitions. Sec. 316.

(1) A person who commits any of the following is guilty of first degree murder and shall be punished by imprisonment for life:
(a) Murder perpetrated by means of poison, lying in wait, or any other willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing.
(b) Murder committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, arson, criminal sexual conduct in the first, second, or third degree, child abuse in the first degree, a major controlled substance offense, robbery, carjacking, breaking and entering of a dwelling, home invasion in the first or second degree, larceny of any kind, extortion, kidnapping, or vulnerable adult abuse in the first and second degree under section 145n.
(c) A murder of a peace officer or a corrections officer committed while the peace officer or corrections officer is lawfully engaged in the performance of any of his or her duties as a peace officer or corrections officer, knowing that the peace officer or corrections officer is a peace officer or corrections officer engaged in the performance of his or her duty as a peace officer or corrections officer.
(2) As used in this section:

(a) “Arson” means a felony violation of chapter X.
(b) “Corrections officer” means any of the following:
(i) A prison or jail guard or other prison or jail personnel.
(ii) Any of the personnel of a boot camp, special alternative incarceration unit, or other minimum security correctional facility.
(iii) A parole or probation officer.
(c) “Major controlled substance offense” means any of the following:
(i) A violation of section 7401(2)(a)(i) to (iii) of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7401.
(ii) A violation of section 7403(2)(a)(i) to (iii) of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7403.
(iii) A conspiracy to commit an offense listed in subparagraph (i) or (ii).
(d) “Peace officer” means any of the following:
(i) A police or conservation officer of this state or a political subdivision of this state.
(ii) A police or conservation officer of the United States.
(iii) A police or conservation officer of another state or a political subdivision of another state.

History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;--CL 1948, 750.316 ;--Am. 1969, Act 331, Eff. Mar. 20, 1970 ;--Am. 1980, Act 28, Imd. Eff. Mar. 7, 1980 ;--Am. 1994, Act 267, Eff. Oct. 1, 1994 ;--Am. 1996, Act 20, Eff. Apr. 1, 1996 ;--Am. 1996, Act 21, Eff. Apr. 1, 1996 ;--Am. 1999, Act 189, Eff. Apr. 1, 2000 ;--Am. 2004, Act 58, Eff. June 11, 2004

[grellis]

I'm no legal scholar by any stretch. Does this mean she can be charged with 1std.murder and it must be shown that she intended to murder or intended to commit 1std. child abuse, the underlying felony? She willfully abandoned her children for over three hours. The oldest child was two. Abuse in my book.

[apackof2]

Yes, it means that it must be proved that she intended to harm her children.
I looked up the "child abuse" defintion that would pertain to the felony statute so she can claim it was an "accident" and the burden is on the prosecutor to prove that the "intent" or reason she left her kids was to harm them, which without direct witness testimony would seem pretty difficult to me

CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT PREVENTION ACT (EXCERPT)

Act 250 of 1982

722.602 Definitions. Sec. 2.

(1) As used in this act:

(a) “Child” means a person under 18 years of age.

(b) “Child abuse” means harm or threatened harm to a child's health or welfare by a person responsible for the child's health or welfare, which harm occurs or is threatened through nonaccidental physical or mental injury; sexual abuse, which includes a violation of section 145c of the Michigan penal code, Act No. 328 of the Public Acts of 1931, being section 750.145c of the Michigan Compiled Laws.

[grellis]

which harm occurs or is threatened through nonaccidental physical...

This is where I don't think she has much wiggle room. I don't think the prosecutor should even have to prove that she knew her kids would be baked alive. Harm was threatened when she left them alone. They were completely defenseless. They could have been kidnapped, raped, beaten, sold into slavery, any number of things may have occurred through her willfull negligence. She knew that harm could come to them. IMO, its unreasonable to assume that she DID NOT know that she was endangering her kids. She lives in the same society as we do. She knew what could happen if she left her kids alone but she threw the dice anyway. Unfortunately, just because I see it that way doesn't mean the prosecutor or courts will agree.