In August 2025, Harford County police discovered a tragic suicide in Forest Hill. What began as a welfare check quickly evolved into one of Maryland’s more unusual criminal cases: prosecutors charged a Baltimore man, Michael Privett, 30, with second-degree murder, involuntary manslaughter, reckless endangerment, assisting suicide by providing means, and several related counts.
The case has raised difficult legal questions. Can someone who did not physically cause a death still be held responsible for murder? What separates a homicide from assisting suicide? And how far can prosecutors stretch criminal law before it becomes overreach?
The Facts of the Privett Case
The charges against Privett originate from a well-being check by the Harford County Sheriff’s Office on August 10. When police entered the Forest Hill apartment, they found the victim already deceased.
According to court records:
- A friend of the victim told investigators they had recently moved into the apartment about two weeks before the incident.
- The friend also reported that the victim’s vehicle, a 2017 gray Nissan Sentra, was missing.
- Police noted that the victim’s car keys, house keys, and wallet were not present at the scene.
Investigators later obtained surveillance footage from a Tractor Supply in Fallston, showing the victim and Privett purchasing an electrical cord on August 7. Police allege that cord was ultimately used in the suicide. Privett was later found in possession of the Nissan’s keys, and he gave statements to police that investigators described as inconsistent.
Why the Charges Are Unusual
Most assisted suicide cases involve terminally ill patients who seek help in ending their suffering. Maryland law criminalizes providing the means to commit suicide if the person knowingly assists. But the Forest Hill case differs: the victim was not terminally ill, and prosecutors escalated charges all the way to second-degree murder.
That escalation is what makes this case unusual and controversial.
Thomas J. Maronick Jr.’s Perspective
Baltimore criminal defense attorney Thomas J. Maronick Jr., though not involved in the case, expressed concern in media interviews that prosecutors may be overcharging.
“That’s the thing that I find just stunning. If somebody’s not actually taking part in the act, how can that be second-degree murder?”
Maronick explained that prosecutors sometimes file the harshest charges available to give juries multiple options. But proving second-degree murder or even involuntary manslaughter without direct action by the defendant may be an uphill battle.
He compared the case to drug-related prosecutions, where supplying narcotics to someone who later overdoses can lead to homicide charges. But even there, the drugs themselves are illegal substances. Buying a legal item, such as an electrical cord, creates a much murkier legal argument.
What Maryland Law Says
Maryland law distinguishes between murder, manslaughter, and assisting suicide:
- Second-degree murder requires proof that the defendant caused another’s death with intent or extreme disregard for life.
- Involuntary manslaughter applies when someone causes another’s death through gross negligence or unlawful conduct.
- Assisting suicide by providing means occurs when a person knowingly provides the tools or instruments for someone to take their own life.
In Privett’s case, the prosecution must prove more than passive awareness. They must show active participation or reckless disregard, an argument that may be difficult to sustain.
Similar Post: Understanding the Legal System: A Guide to Maryland's Courts
Why Overcharging Matters
Maronick emphasized that there’s a big difference between helping someone commit a crime and committing the act yourself. If providing an everyday item that later becomes a suicide method could amount to murder, the law risks casting too wide a net.
He warned that the state could set a precedent where even lending someone a household object, like an exercise band, could later be interpreted as providing a “murder weapon.” Such an approach could erode the line between tragic circumstances and intentional homicide.
Reckless Endangerment as a More Likely Charge
From a defense perspective, the charge most likely to withstand legal scrutiny may be reckless endangerment, which is a misdemeanor in Maryland. If prosecutors can prove Privett knew his friend intended to use the cord to commit suicide yet facilitated its purchase, they may argue his actions were reckless.
Still, even that requires proving intent and knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt. Did Privett truly believe his friend would go through with it? Did he have a legal duty to intervene? These are the gray areas that make assisted suicide cases so difficult.
The Broader Implications
Cases like this force courts to grapple with fundamental questions:
- Where is the line between moral responsibility and criminal liability?
- Should prosecutors pursue murder charges when there is no direct physical act of killing?
- Could expanding liability in assisted suicide cases criminalize ordinary behavior?
Maryland courts have dealt with similar issues before. In 2000, a teenager who gave his girlfriend a gun later used in her suicide was not found criminally liable because her mental illness made the act independent of his role. By contrast, in the 1990s, pathologist Dr. Jack Kevorkian was convicted of second-degree murder in Michigan because he physically administered lethal drugs to a patient, crossing the line from providing means to taking direct action.
The Privett case sits somewhere in the middle, testing how far Maryland law can stretch.
Similar Post: How Pretrial Motions Can Make or Break a Maryland Criminal Case
What Families and Defendants Should Know
For families affected by suicide, these cases are heartbreaking. For defendants, they highlight how complex criminal liability can become when mental health and legal standards collide. Anyone facing charges like these should immediately seek experienced legal representation.
Defending such a case may involve:
- Challenging whether the defendant’s actions truly meet the definition of “providing means.”
- Questioning whether prosecutors can prove knowledge and intent.
- Highlighting the difference between passive presence and active participation.
- Underscoring the risk of jury confusion when multiple overlapping charges are filed.
Similar Post: What to Do if You’re Arrested for a Crime in Ocean City, Maryland
Call Maronick Law for Criminal Defense Representation in Maryland
The case of Michael Privett underscores how aggressive prosecutors can be when charging unusual or tragic events. While the courts will ultimately decide whether second-degree murder or assisting suicide applies, one thing is clear: anyone accused of such serious crimes needs skilled legal guidance.
At Maronick Law, we have years of experience defending clients against homicide, manslaughter, and related charges in Maryland courts. We understand how prosecutors build their cases and how to challenge charges that may be exaggerated or unsupported by evidence.
If you or a loved one is facing criminal charges, don’t wait. Call Maronick Law today at 443-551-2747 or fill out our online contact form for a free consultation. Our team will fight for your rights, challenge overreaching prosecutions, and stand by your side every step of the way.
Disclaimer: This blog is intended for informational purposes only and does not establish an attorney-client relationship. It should not be considered as legal advice. For personalized legal assistance, please consult our team directly.