PEOPLE v DUPREE
Docket No. 139396
Supreme Court of Michigan
Decided July 23, 2010
Argued April 14, 2010 (Calendar No. 7).
486 Mich 693
In an opinion by Justice CORRIGAN, joined by Justices WEAVER, YOUNG, MARKMAN, and HATHAWAY, the Supreme Court held:
1. Neither defendant nor the prosecution properly raised the affirmative defense of duress in the trial court, and defendant did not present evidence pertaining to that defense. Therefore, the parties did not preserve the issue of duress. Defendant, however, properly raised the common-law affirmative defense of self-defense in the trial court, introducing testimony supporting that theory and requesting a self-defense jury instruction, thus preserving the issue.
2. The felon-in-possession statute,
3. Sufficient evidence supported a jury instruction on self-defense. Defendant presented evidence from which the jury could have concluded that his possession of the firearm was justified because he honestly and reasonably believed that his life was in danger during the struggle and that it was necessary for him to exercise force to protect himself.
4. Once a defendant injects the issue of self-defense and satisfies the initial burden of producing some evidence from which a jury could conclude that the elements necessary to establish a prima facie defense of self-defense exist, the prosecution bears the burden of disproving that affirmative defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
5. The trial court‘s instruction on the defense of momentary innocent possession was not harmless error. It must be presumed that the jury followed the trial court‘s instructions. Under the modified instruction given, which required defendant to show that he intended to deliver the firearm to the police at the earliest possible time, the jury had no alternative but to find defendant guilty in light of defendant‘s testimony that he threw the gun out of a car window some distance from the scene of the struggle. The modified instruction wholly negated defendant‘s theory of the case: that his temporary possession of the firearm was justified because he seized it to protect himself. A criminal defendant is entitled to have a properly instructed jury consider the evidence against him or her, and in this case it is more probable than not that the error was outcome determinative and resulted in a
Result affirmed and case remanded.
Justice CAVANAGH, joined by Chief Justice KELLY, concurring in part and dissenting in part, concurred in the result only. Justice CAVANAGH agreed that common-law self-defense is a valid defense to a felon-in-possession charge, that the prosecution bears the burden of disproving self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt once a defendant properly raises the defense, and that the trial court‘s erroneous jury instruction in this case was not harmless error. He disagreed that the affirmative defense of duress was not properly before the Supreme Court. Defendant‘s testimony concerning his struggle over the gun, during which the other person continued his attempt to take the firearm back from defendant despite having been shot three times and defendant‘s repeatedly telling him to stop, presents a textbook example of facts from which a jury could conclude that the essential elements of duress were present. Nonetheless, the result would be the same because the majority correctly held that defendant is entitled to a new trial.
- CRIMINAL LAW — FELON-IN-POSSESSION — DEFENSES — SELF-DEFENSE — COMMON LAW.
The common-law affirmative defense of self-defense is generally available to a defendant charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm (
MCL 750.224f ). - CRIMINAL LAW — DEFENSES — SELF-DEFENSE — BURDEN OF PROOF OF SELF-DEFENSE.
Once a defendant satisfies the initial burden of producing some evidence from which the jury could conclude that the elements necessary to establish a prima facie defense of self-defense exist, the prosecution bears the burden of disproving that defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Michael A. Cox, Attorney General, B. Eric Restuccia, Solicitor General, Kym L. Worthy, Prosecuting Attorney, and Timothy A. Baughman, Chief of Research, Training, and Appeals, and Joseph A. Puleo, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Kevin Ernst for defendant.
Brian A. Peppler, David S. Leyton, and Donald A. Kuebler for the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan
CORRIGAN, J. In this criminal case, we hold that the traditional common law affirmative defense of self-defense may be interposed to a charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm,
We originally granted leave to consider whether any of the traditional common law affirmative defenses are available for a charge of felon-in-possession and, if so, whether the defendant has the burden of proving the affirmative defense. We conclude, however, that only the common law affirmative defense of self-defense was properly raised before the trial court. Limiting our analysis to the issue preserved below, we agree with the
We also take this opportunity to reaffirm that the prosecution bears the burden of disproving the common law affirmative defense of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Finally, we conclude that the Court of Appeals properly ruled that the trial court‘s modified jury instruction on the momentary innocent possession defense was erroneous. Because this instructional error more probably than not resulted in a miscarriage of justice, defendant is entitled to a new trial on the felon-in-possession charge. Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Appeals’ result and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On September 11, 2005, defendant Roberto Marcello Dupree and a female companion attended a birthday party for his brother at the house of defendant‘s sister-in-law, Adrian Dupree. Adrian‘s 24-year-old niece, Ashley Horton, and Horton‘s 24-year-old boyfriend, Damond Reeves, also attended. When the party was ending, defendant and Reeves began quarrelling on the porch. The altercation culminated in defendant shooting Reeves three times. As a result of the altercation, the prosecutor charged defendant with two counts
The witnesses gave conflicting testimony at trial about the circumstances surrounding the altercation. Reeves testified that defendant directed an expletive at him and shoved him for no reason. Reeves also testified that he and defendant fought until defendant left the fracas, went inside, and returned with a gun. Reeves stated that defendant shot him three times as he continued wrestling with defendant from the front yard to the street. Although the sequence of events was unclear, Horton testified that when she attempted to intervene, defendant struck her in the face with the gun. She went inside to call the police and heard a shot. Horton returned to the porch and heard a second shot before going back inside, where she heard a third shot. She stated that defendant later entered the house, put the gun to her chin, and pulled the trigger. The gun did not fire.
By contrast, defendant and two other bystanders testified that the altercation began when Reeves shoved Adrian Dupree off the porch. Defendant told Reeves not to disrespect his sister-in-law and asked him to leave. Reeves then pushed defendant. The two men fell off the porch and began wrestling. Reeves‘s shirt was pulled up, exposing a gun in the waistband of his pants. Defendant testified that he feared for his life because Reeves was larger than defendant, inebriated, and
During the three-day jury trial, defense counsel argued that defendant had not assaulted Horton, but had acted in self-defense in response to Reeves‘s actions. Regarding the felon-in-possession charge, defense counsel asserted that defendant‘s temporary possession of the gun was justified because defendant had seized possession of the gun to protect himself during the struggle. Defense counsel requested a standard self-defense jury instruction for all charges. The prosecutor did not object, and the trial court instructed the jury as requested. Additionally, the court instructed the jury sua sponte that it could find defendant not guilty of being a felon in possession if it found the following:
As to being a felon in possession, [defendant] claims that the gun was produced in a struggle. And of course, if that‘s the case that the gun was produced during the course of a struggle and you find that it happened that way, that would be a defense to felon in possession provided you find that he did not keep the gun in his possession any longer than necessary to defend himself.
Defense counsel objected to the trial court‘s instruction, arguing that the court should not have included the phrase “any longer than necessary to defend himself.” The trial court responded that it had crafted the instruction, which it labeled “the necessity defense to being a felon-in-possession,” from federal law. After further discussion, the court gave defense counsel more time to locate legal authority to substantiate the objection.
And if the person had a brief or momentary possession of the weapon based on necessity, that‘s a defense to being a felon in possession. And the elements to that are that the defendant had the gun because he had taken it from someone else who was in wrongful possession of it, or he took it from him because of necessity, because he needed to. Second, that the possession after taking the gun was brief. And third, that it was the defendant‘s intention to deliver the gun to the police at the earliest possible time. The law imposes that duty as a concomitant part of that. [Emphasis added.]
The trial court stated that the modified instruction replaced its prior instruction regarding “the necessity defense.” Subsequently, the jury acquitted defendant of all felony charges except the felon-in-possession charge. The court sentenced defendant to serve a term of 48 months’ to 30 years’ imprisonment as a fourth-offense habitual offender.7
In a published opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed defendant‘s conviction and remanded for a new trial.
The prosecution then applied for leave to appeal in this Court. We granted the application and directed the parties to address whether any of the traditional common law affirmative defenses of self-defense, necessity, or duress are available for the charge of being a felon in possession,
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Whether common law affirmative defenses are available for a statutory crime and, if so, where the burden of proof lies are questions of law. This Court reviews questions of law de novo. People v Thompson, 477 Mich 146, 151; 730 NW2d 708 (2007). We review a claim of instructional error involving a question of law de novo, but we review the trial court‘s determination that a jury instruction applies to the facts of the case for an abuse of discretion. People v Gillis, 474 Mich 105, 113; 712 NW2d 419 (2006). The defendant bears the burden of establishing that the asserted instructional error resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
The preliminary issue in this case is whether the prosecution or defendant properly raised and preserved the traditional common law affirmative defenses of self-defense and duress before the trial court. Although the Court of Appeals analyzed the availability of both affirmative defenses in its decision and the parties addressed both defenses in their arguments before this Court, our review is necessarily limited by the specific issue preserved below. We have “long recognized the importance of preserving issues for the purpose of appellate review.” People v Grant, 445 Mich 535, 546; 520 NW2d 123 (1994); see also People v Brott, 163 Mich 150, 152; 128 NW 236 (1910) (“This court has often held that it will not review questions that have not been raised in the trial court, and such is the rule according to the great weight of authority.“). In accordance with the general rule of issue preservation, “issues that are not properly raised before a trial court cannot be raised on appeal absent compelling or extraordinary circumstances.” Grant, 445 Mich at 546.
After thoroughly reviewing the record, we conclude that neither defendant nor the prosecution properly raised the affirmative defense of duress before the trial court. Defendant did not present evidence that pertained to the affirmative defense of duress or otherwise assert its availability for the charge of felon-in-possession. Similarly, the prosecution failed to interpose any issue concerning duress or its attendant burden of proof at trial. It appears that defendant first injected the issue of duress in the Court of Appeals. The prosecution seized on the issue in this Court, discussing duress extensively in its brief and at oral argument. In light of these facts, we cannot conclude that the parties preserved the issue of duress.
The felon-in-possession statute,
The Legislature‘s failure to provide explicitly for the common law affirmative defense of self-defense does not foreclose defendants from relying on it to justify a violation of
Our conclusion that self-defense remains an available defense is reinforced by our canvass of authorities elsewhere. Among the states that have addressed whether self-defense is an available defense to a statutory prohibition against felons possessing firearms, most other jurisdictions have concluded that self-defense is an available defense. The Tennessee Supreme Court, for example, acknowledged the availability of self-defense as one potential affirmative defense to the charge of being a felon in possession. See State v Bledsoe, 226 SW3d 349, 357 n 7 (Tenn, 2007). Similarly, the Indiana Court of Appeals concluded that
Indiana‘s prohibition against a felon possessing a firearm was not intended to affect his or her right to use a firearm in self-defense, but was intended only to prohibit members of the affected classes from arming themselves with firearms or having such weapons in their custody or control in circumstances other than those in which the right to use deadly force in self-defense exists or reasonably appears to exists. [Harmon v State, 849 NE2d 726, 734 (Ind App, 2006).]
The Minnesota Supreme Court also recognized the availability of self-defense for the charge of felon-in-possession but stated that “the closer questions are whether the defendant, even if justified in wresting the gun away from [a dangerous aggressor], continued his aggression beyond the limits of self-defense or his possession of the pistol beyond justifiable possession.” State v Spaulding, 296 NW2d 870, 876 (Minn, 1980).
At common law, the affirmative defense of self-defense justifies otherwise punishable criminal conduct, usually the killing of another person, “if the defendant honestly and reasonably believes his life is in imminent danger or that there is a threat of serious bodily harm and that it is necessary to exercise deadly force to prevent such harm to himself.”16 Generally,
[o]ne who is not the aggressor in an encounter is justified in using a reasonable amount of force against his adversary when he reasonably believes (a) that he is in immediate danger of unlawful bodily harm from his adversary and (b) that the use of such force is necessary to avoid this danger.17
“A finding that a defendant acted in justifiable self-defense necessarily requires a finding that the defendant acted intentionally, but that the circumstances justified his actions.”18 Professor LaFave articulated the rationale of the affirmative defense of self-defense:
It is only just that one who is unlawfully attacked by another, and who has no opportunity to resort to the law for his defense, should be able to take reasonable steps to defend himself from physical harm. When the steps he takes are reasonable, he has a complete defense to such crimes against the person as murder and manslaughter, attempted murder, assault and battery and the aggravated forms of assault and battery, and perhaps other crimes as well. His intentional infliction of (or, if he misses, his attempt to inflict) physical harm upon the other, or his threat to inflict such harm, is said
With the enactment of the Self-Defense Act (SDA),
In this case, sufficient evidence supported a jury instruction on the common law affirmative defense of self-defense. As the Court of Appeals succinctly observed, “[defendant] presented evidence from which a jury could find—and apparently did find—that he acted in self-defense when he struggled over the gun with Reeves and ultimately shot Reeves three times.”23 We agree that defendant introduced evidence from which a jury could conclude that defendant‘s criminal possession of the firearm was justified because defendant honestly and reasonably believed that his life was in imminent danger and that it was necessary for him to exercise force to protect himself.
Defendant testified that when he intervened after Reeves shoved defendant‘s sister-in-law off the porch,
Having concluded that the common law affirmative defense of self-defense may be interposed in this felon-in-possession case, we also conclude that the prosecution bears the burden of disproving the common law defense of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Stated another way, once the defendant injects the issue of self-defense and satisfies the initial burden of producing some evidence from which a jury could conclude
Finally, we conclude that the trial court‘s jury instruction on the momentary innocent possession defense was not harmless error. Defendant, therefore, is entitled to a new trial on the felon-in-possession charge. Under
And the elements to that are [first] that the defendant had the gun because he had taken it from someone else who was in wrongful possession of it, or he took it from him because of necessity, because he needed to. Second, that the possession after taking the gun was brief. And third, that it was the defendant‘s intention to deliver the gun to the police at the earliest possible time. [Emphasis added.]
The trial court clarified that this instruction replaced its prior instruction regarding “the necessity defense” to being a felon in possession.
The Court of Appeals majority correctly ruled that the modified jury instruction was not harmless. We presume that the jury followed the trial court‘s instructions.29 Under the trial court‘s modified instruction on the momentary innocent possession defense, the jury had no alternative but to find defendant guilty of being a felon in possession because defendant proffered no evidence that he intended “to deliver the gun to the police at the earliest possible time.” To the contrary, defendant testified that he threw the gun from the window of his female companion‘s vehicle after he was
IV. CONCLUSION
Having necessarily limited our analysis to the specific issue properly raised and preserved before the trial court, we conclude that the traditional common law affirmative defense of self-defense is generally available to a defendant charged with being a felon in possession if supported by sufficient evidence. We also conclude that self-defense was available under the facts of this case. Once a defendant satisfies the initial burden of producing some evidence from which a jury could conclude that the elements necessary to establish a prima facie defense of self-defense exist, the prosecution bears the burden of disproving the affirmative defense of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Finally, we hold that the trial court‘s modified jury instruction on the momentary innocent possession defense to being a felon in possession was not harmless error. Consequently, we
WEAVER, YOUNG, MARKMAN, and HATHAWAY, JJ., concurred with CORRIGAN, J.
CAVANAGH, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part). I concur in the result only. I agree that common-law self defense is a valid defense to a charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm,
To properly raise a duress defense, the defendant bears the burden of producing ” ‘some evidence from which the jury can conclude that the essential elements of duress are present.’ ” People v Lemons, 454 Mich 234, 246; 562 NW2d 447 (1997) (citation omitted). To satisfy the burden of production, a defendant must produce some evidence from which the jury could conclude the following:
“A) The threatening conduct was sufficient to create in the mind of a reasonable person the fear of death or serious bodily harm;
“B) The conduct in fact caused such fear of death or serious bodily harm in the mind of the defendant;
“C) The fear or duress was operating upon the mind of the defendant at the time of the alleged act; and
“D) The defendant committed the act to avoid the threatened harm.” [Id. at 247 (citation omitted).]
I agree with the Court of Appeals concurrence that “[a]lthough defendant in the instant case labeled his defense ‘self-defense’ rather than ‘duress,’ he unquestionably presented to the jury a scenario entirely consistent with a classic duress defense.” People v Dupree, 284 Mich App 89, 113; 771 NW2d 470 (2009) (GLEICHER, J., concurring). As the majority acknowledges, defendant testified that Damond Reeves, a 300-pound, highly inebriated man with a gun, pushed defendant and then began wrestling with him. During the struggle, defendant became aware that Reeves possessed a gun, and defendant testified that he feared for his life. Defendant also testified that Reeves reached for his gun during the struggle and that he shot Reeves as they struggled over the gun. Finally, defendant testified that Reeves continued to attempt to take the gun from defendant even after defendant shot Reeves three times, despite the fact that defendant repeatedly told Reeves to “Just stop” and “Let me go.” In my view, this account is a textbook example of a factual scenario from which a jury could conclude that the essential elements of duress were present.
Furthermore, I agree with the Court of Appeals concurrence that the trial court essentially instructed the jury on the duress defense when the court stated the following in its initial jury instruction:
“As to being a felon in possession, [Dupree] claims that the gun was produced in a struggle. And of course, if that‘s the case that the gun was produced during the course of a struggle and you find that it happened that way, that would be a defense to felon in possession provided you find that he did not keep the gun in his possession any longer than necessary to defend himself.” [Id. at 114.]
KELLY, C.J., concurred with CAVANAGH, J.
Notes
[A] defendant may raise justification as a defense to being a felon-in-possession by introducing evidence from which the jury could conclude all the following:
(1) The defendant or another person was under an unlawful and immediate threat that was sufficient to create in the mind of a reasonable person the fear of death or serious bodily harm, and the threat actually caused a fear of death or serious bodily harm in the mind of the defendant at the time of the possession of the firearm.
(2) The defendant did not recklessly or negligently place himself or herself in a situation where he or she would be forced to engage in criminal conduct.
(3) The defendant had no reasonable legal alternative to taking possession, that is, a chance to both refuse to take possession and also to avoid the threatened harm.
(4) The defendant took possession to avoid the threatened harm, that is, there was a direct causal relationship between the defendant‘s criminal action and the avoidance of the threatened harm.
(5) The defendant terminated his or her possession at the earliest possible opportunity once the danger had passed. [Id. at 107-108.]The first category consists of persons convicted of a “felony.” These persons regain their right to possess a firearm three years after paying all fines imposed for their violations, serving all jail time imposed, and successfully completing all conditions of parole or probation.
In this case, the parties stipulated that defendant had been convicted of a “specified felony” under