SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- The eight people charged with felonies in connection with last year’s deadly Esparto, California, fireworks explosion did not set out to kill their own co-workers and employees. So why are five of them being charged with murder?

A 39-page indictment unsealed Friday offers some hints, building a case that the sale and storage of fireworks at the Esparto facility were part of a larger criminal enterprise.

Those charged included Kenneth Chee , the founder and CEO of Devastating Fireworks, which stored pyrotechnics at the explosion site in Esparto. Chee was arrested Thursday while on a family vacation to Disney World and charged with seven counts of second-degree murder — one for each person killed in July 1 blast.

Jack Ying Lee, the company’s operations manager, also faces second-degree murder charges, along with Sam Machado, a former Yolo County Sheriff’s deputy who owned the property where the fireworks were stored. Gary Y. Chan, Jr., who obtained the federal explosives permit for Devastating Fireworks, and Douglas Tollefsen, whom prosecutors said helped lead the company helmed by Chee and sold illegal explosives under the private label “For the Streets.”

The five men, the indictment declares, “did willfully and unlawfully kill a human being.” They were also charged with multiple counts of conspiracy, endangerment and possession of explosives.

At a news conference, Yolo County Deputy District Attorney Clara Nabity also described the group’s behavior leading up to the blast as criminal, involving black market distribution of illegal fireworks so large that they should be considered explosives rather than pyrotechnics. It was the initial blast from Devastating Fireworks’ operation on the site that caused the deaths, she said.

“Those counts allege a decade-long conspiracy which turned the property of former sheriff’s Lt. Sam Machado into the Northern California hub for an illegal enterprise that imports and sells illegal explosives on the black market,” Nabity said.

Is it murder if you didn’t mean to kill someone?

California law allows prosecutors to charge defendants with second-degree murder when a death occurs during the commission of a dangerous felony if they are also a major actor in the crime and they acted with reckless indifference to human life, said Matthew Taylor, a Sacramento area defense attorney.

The charge does not require premeditation, but it does call for “malice aforethought” and is part of what is called in the law an “implied malice” theory of crime.

“When it’s not intentional murder, you only have an implied malice theory, which, which means that they have to act with reckless indifference to human life, and a depraved heart,” he said.

An example of implied malice would be when someone does something extremely dangerous, like throwing a bowling ball off the top of a bridge on to a freeway, and it goes through somebody’s windshield and kills them, Taylor said.

The person throwing the bowling ball might not have intended a specific victim to be killed, or even knowingly planned to kill someone, but nonetheless did something that was obviously likely to cause serious harm.

“You’re doing something so reckless, so dangerous to human life that there’s a substantial likelihood that it will cause death,” he said.

In California, with its history of wildfires often caused by arson or negligence, prosecutors have not shied away from filing criminal charges, including murder, against people suspected of starting blazes or explosions, Taylor said. Explosions linked to illegal indoor marijuana grows have also resulted in such charges, he said.

“It’s kind of popular politically to go after people that are creating these types of dangers — in Northern California, specifically,” he said.

A tragic accident or willful homicide?

But prosecutors might have a difficult time convincing a jury that the five defendants are guilty of murder, said Linda Parisi, a defense attorney based in Sacramento. A manslaughter charge ,or civil actions against the owners of the land and the company via a lawsuit, might be more appropriate, she said.

“The charge of murder should be reserved for those who plan and intend on taking a life,” Parisi said. “It’s a terrible loss of life, but not every loss of life should be charged as a murder in criminal court.”

Once in court, the defendants might seem sympathetic to a jury, she and Taylor said, partly because of the severity of the charges.

Rather than seeing the defendants as hardened criminals, Taylor said, “You’re going to have somebody who is a business person.”

Defense attorneys will likely argue that the explosion was a tragic accident, but was unintended — even if the defendants broke rules meant to regulate the sale and storage of fireworks, Parisi said.

“They should have followed the regulatory scheme,” she said. “However the consequences of that are a tragic accident.”

To combat such reasoning, prosecutors will have to present a jury with detailed evidence, such as phone or text records, or other indications that the group knew what they were doing was extremely dangerous and could kill people, and that they did it anyway.

“They’re going to need to have really strong, clear information showing an awareness that they were engaging in conduct that was reckless to human life,” Taylor said. “And it’s got to be a lot more than just storing fireworks.”

____

©2026 The Sacramento Bee. Visit at sacbee.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.