People of Michigan v. Matthew Darryl Green, 359758

Anthony Coleman died from a drug overdose after a group (Green, Coleman, Woodman, Henderson) pooled money, purchased drugs, and shared them; the heroin used contained or was fentanyl.
At the scene Coleman became unresponsive; Green attempted to revive him and eventually called 911 (prosecution notes a ~30-minute delay per a witness).
Green was charged with multiple offenses including delivery causing death and possession with intent to deliver.
Prosecutor moved to bar Green from using the statutory "Good Samaritan" affirmative defense (MCL 333.7403(3), 333.7404(3)), arguing it does not apply to delivery and that Green did not act in good faith.
The trial court granted the prosecution's motion based on preliminary-examination testimony; Green appealed interlocutorily.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the trial court prematurely resolved the availability of the Good Samaritan defense and that such affirmative defenses are typically resolved at trial based on the evidence presented there.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly precluded Green from raising the Good Samaritan defense before trial	Good Samaritan unavailable here; evidence (including ~30-minute delay) shows no good-faith call	Premature to decide; defense is affirmative and should be considered at trial after evidence is presented	Reversed—premature to decide; Green must be allowed to present evidence at trial and seek instruction if supported by evidence
Whether the Good Samaritan defense applies to delivery charges	Good Samaritan does not apply to delivery offenses	The facts may show joint purchase/shared use (possession), not delivery	Court acknowledged defense does not apply to delivery, but whether delivery occurred is a factual question for trial
Whether preliminary-examination testimony alone can resolve the affirmative-defense issue	Prelim testimony establishes lack of good faith and possible delivery	Preliminary exam is for probable cause; affirmative defenses are typically raised and resolved at trial	Prelim evidence insufficient; credibility and good-faith determinations are for the jury at trial

People v Yost, 278 Mich. App. 341 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008) (defendant has constitutional right to present a defense)
People v Plunkett, 485 Mich. 50 (Mich. 2010) (purpose of preliminary examination is to determine probable cause, not resolve guilt or defenses)
People v Waltonen, 272 Mich. App. 678 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006) (affirmative defenses are typically presented and considered at trial; prelim is not a trial)
People v Redden, 290 Mich. App. 65 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010) (same principle regarding preliminary examinations and defenses)
People v Morrison, 328 Mich. App. 647 (Mich. Ct. App. 2019) (Good Samaritan is a statutory affirmative defense requiring prima facie evidence; typically a jury question)
People v Veling, 443 Mich. 23 (Mich. 1993) (duty to instruct on lesser offenses is governed by the evidence adduced at trial)
United States v Swiderski, 548 F.2d 445 (2d Cir. 1977) (rule that joint acquisition for personal use is simple possession, not distribution)
People v Schultz, 246 Mich. App. 695 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001) (found Swiderski persuasive but distinguished facts supporting delivery conviction)
People v Binder, 215 Mich. App. 30 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996) (trial court must give possession instruction in delivery case if requested and supported by evidence)
People v Korkigian, 334 Mich. App. 481 (Mich. Ct. App. 2020) (availability of statutory affirmative defenses reviewed de novo)