People of Michigan v. Jerry John Swantek
334451
| Mich. Ct. App. | Nov 30, 2017Background
- Defendant Jerry Swantek shot at Steven Cobb’s vehicle after a roadside confrontation on April 17, 2015; Cobb’s car sustained three bullet strikes.
- Facts in dispute: Cobb testified he followed Swantek to get a license plate and was not intending violence; Swantek and his passenger testified Cobb tailgated, threatened to kill him at a gas station, and later drove toward them as Swantek executed a U-turn.
- Swantek acknowledged firing to disable Cobb’s vehicle (aiming at the left rear tire) and claimed he believed Cobb intended to ram them, posing imminent danger.
- Trial court denied Swantek’s requested self-defense instruction, finding no honest and reasonable belief of imminent great bodily harm (cited ballistics and that Cobb remained in his vehicle without producing a weapon).
- Jury acquitted Swantek of assault with intent to murder and assault with intent to do great bodily harm, but convicted him of felonious assault and felony-firearm; jury asked during deliberations whether self-defense could acquit if elements of an offense were met.
- Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding the trial court abused its discretion by refusing a self-defense instruction supported by some evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by denying a jury instruction on self-defense | Trial: Swantek could not have honestly and reasonably believed he faced imminent great bodily harm because ballistics showed he was moving away when he fired and Cobb gave a benign reason for following | Swantek: testimony (and passenger) provided some evidence he reasonably believed Cobb would ram them after threats and persistent tailgating, so instruction was required | Reversed: court abused its discretion; some evidence supported self-defense and jury should have been instructed |
| Whether defendant must present stronger evidence than prosecution to obtain instruction | Implicitly: self-defense requires credible proof of imminent danger | Swantek: only required to produce "some evidence" on each element to trigger instruction | Clarified defendant need only produce some evidence, viewed from defendant’s perceptions, not superior proof |
| Whether trial-court reliance on ballistics could negate perceived threat as matter of law | Prosecution: ballistics showed danger had passed by firing time, negating imminence | Swantek: reasonableness judged by his perceptions; even if objective danger had passed, honest reasonable belief can persist | Held: trial court erred by relying on ballistics to negate the perception-based reasonableness requirement |
| Whether instructional error was outcome determinative | Prosecution: jury still convicted on lesser offenses; error not necessarily outcome determinative | Swantek: jury asked about self-defense and acquitted higher charges, suggesting instruction could have altered verdict | Held: error likely outcome determinative; remand for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Dupree v. 486 Mich. 693 (2010) (standard: review of instruction applicability is abuse-of-discretion)
- Unger v. 278 Mich. App. 210 (2008) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Riddle v. 467 Mich. 116 (2002) (defendant bears burden to show instructional omission was outcome determinative)
- Katt v. 248 Mich. App. 282 (2001) (trial courts must clearly present case and instruct on applicable law)
- Canales v. 243 Mich. App. 571 (2000) (instructions must cover material issues, defenses, and theories supported by evidence)
- Guajardo v. 300 Mich. App. 26 (2013) (defendant must produce some evidence on all elements to require instruction)
- Orlewicz v. 293 Mich. App. 96 (2011) (self-defense reasonableness depends on actor’s perceptions)