In a resentencing hearing held in St. Joseph County Circuit Court Thursday, Judge Paul Stutesman reduced the minimum sentence of 41-year-old Douglas S. Shuman, who was originally sentenced to two concurrent terms of life in prison and two additional years for a felony firearm conviction, after he shot and killed his parents James and Arunee Shuman in Three Rivers in 1997.

After hearing arguments from defense attorney Jacqueline Ouvry, and statements of support from Shuman’s sister Barbara Morgan and St. Joseph County Prosecutor John McDonough, Stutesman resentenced Shuman to a minimum of 25 years and a maximum of 60 years, and time served for the felony firearm conviction. Shuman has served approximately 21.8 years of the 25 to 60-year sentence, and as a result of Thursday’s ruling could be eligible for parole in a few short years.

Shuman was convicted of murdering his parents on the evening of February 12, 1997. The father died after being shot, escaping their farmhouse near Three Rivers, and being hit by a car. Police arrived when the father was still onsite and alive. After a standoff, police broke into the house early the following morning and found the mother in bed, dead as the result of one or more gunshot wounds.

Police found and arrested Shuman, after which he admitted to shooting both his mother and his father. He was a senior at Three Rivers High School at the time. Neighbors alleged a troubled relationship between the convicted Shuman and his parents, and possible abuse by the father.

At issue Thursday were a series of decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and the Michigan Supreme Court that affect whether a juvenile offender can have a life sentence invalidated and receive a new sentence. At the time of the incident, Shuman was 17 years, 7 months, and 7 days old. 

In 2016, SCOTUS upheld its 2012 Miller v Alabama decision, which retroactively invalidated mandatory life sentences for juveniles as a form of cruel and unusual punishment. Ultimately, the decision forbids courts from denying resentencing hearings for all “juvenile lifers.” Other offenders so convicted have already been resentenced in other courts as a result of the SCOTUS rulings. 

There have since been appeals cases before the Michigan Supreme Court that have clarified the terms under which a so-called “juvenile lifer” can seek resentencing as the issue pertains to Michigan law. 

Watershed Voice will provide complete coverage of Thursday’s proceedings in a follow-up story on Friday.

Alek Haak-Frost is executive editor of Watershed Voice.