People v. Henderson
306 Mich. App. 1
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Defendant convicted by jury of second-degree murder, assault with intent to commit murder (AWIM), felon in possession of a firearm, and three felony-firearm counts; sentenced as a fourth-offender to lengthy prison terms.
- At trial defendant claimed he went to the scene intending a fistfight (to help an accomplice) and that any shooting was not intended to kill; he admitted firing a .380 handgun.
- Prosecution presented evidence that defendant and two accomplices brought guns, fired during the attack (one victim died, another wounded), and then fled, disposed of firearms, destroyed a phone, and lied to police.
- Jury was instructed on aiding-and-abetting liability; defense requested a duress instruction via a jury question.
- Trial judge refused to give a duress instruction for homicide/AWIM, responding that "Duress is not a defense to homicide/murder," and defendant preserved the objection.
- Defendant appealed, arguing instructional error (duress and omission of bracketed AWIM language) and insufficiency of the evidence for intent/malice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether duress instructions were required for murder (including as aider/abettor) | Duress is not available; judge correctly refused instruction | Duress should be available to an aider/abettor even if unavailable to principal | Court: Duress is not a defense to homicide and not available to an aider/abettor; refusal proper |
| Whether duress instruction was required for AWIM | Duress inapplicable to offenses that would be murder if successful | Duress should excuse or mitigate AWIM because victim survived | Court: Duress is not a defense to AWIM (attempted or attempted-equivalent murder); refusal proper |
| Whether omission of bracketed AWIM language ("circumstances did not legally excuse or reduce the crime") was structural error | Prosecution met burden; instruction adequate | Omission relieved prosecution of proving that, if successful, assault would have been murder (links to duress) | Court: Defense waived challenge by approving instructions; viewed as not prejudicial; no reversal |
| Sufficiency of evidence for malice/intent (second-degree murder and AWIM) | Evidence (guns, admissions, circumstantial proof, flight, destruction of evidence) supports intent/malice | Defendant intended only a fistfight or fired into air; lacked intent to kill | Court: Viewing evidence in prosecution's favor, sufficient evidence supported convictions; jury credibility determinations upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Lemons, 454 Mich 234 (Mich. 1997) (standard for when duress instruction is required)
- People v Dittis, 157 Mich App 38 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987) (duress not a defense to homicide; one should risk own life rather than take another's)
- People v Ericksen, 288 Mich App 192 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010) (elements of AWIM: assault, intent to kill, would be murder if successful)
- People v Robinson, 475 Mich 1 (Mich. 2006) (aiding-and-abetting intent and natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine)
- People v Carines, 460 Mich 750 (Mich. 1999) (review of jury instructions as a whole; harmless-error framework)
- People v Reese, 491 Mich 127 (Mich. 2012) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- People v Goecke, 457 Mich 442 (Mich. 1998) (elements of second-degree murder and definition of malice)
- People v Kanaan, 278 Mich App 594 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008) (minimal circumstantial evidence can establish intent; crediting jury inferences)