Author: LegalEase Solutions

An overview of:

1. The Castle Doctrine in Michigan
2. The use of deadly force in self-defense in Michigan
3. The threat of deadly force in self-defense in Michigan  

SHORT ANSWERS

1. Generally, under Michigan common law, a person is subject to a duty to retreat as far as possible before resorting to the use of deadly force in self-defense. Conversely, the ‘Castle Doctrine’ or the ‘Castle Law’ empowers a person to use deadly force in self-defense without retreating when he or she is in her home or place of business. A person has the legal right to be in his dwelling or place of business and the use of deadly force in self-defense under those circumstances is justified.
2. A person may use deadly force in self-defense if he reasonably and honestly believes that he is in imminent danger of being killed or receiving serious bodily injury. In Michigan, the general rule is that, a person has the common law duty to retreat as far and safely as possible before resorting to the use of deadly force. However, there is no duty to retreat inside one’s dwelling or place of business..
3. The Michigan Self Defense Act does not define ‘deadly force’ or ‘threat of deadly force’. There are no case laws defining ‘threat of deadly force’. But it has been discussed that acts such as displaying a knife would amount to threat of deadly force and that the threat of deadly force is a non deadly force. Threat of deadly force may be used in self-defense.

RESEARCH FINDINGS

1. Castle doctrine in Michigan

Michigan law sets out the purpose and limits of self-defense. A person may use deadly force in self-defense. However, a person using deadly force in self-defense should have an honest and reasonable belief that it is necessary to use deadly force while standing his ground. Unlike the Michigan common law,  the Castle law  does not impose a duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense when one is in his dwelling or place of business.

Human life is not to be lightly disregarded, and the law will not permit it to be destroyed unless upon urgent occasion. But the rules which make it excusable or justifiable to destroy it under some circumstances, are really meant to insure its general protection. They are designed to prevent reckless and wicked men from assailing peaceable members of society, by exposing them to the danger of fatal resistance at the hands of those whom they wantonly attack, and put in peril or fear of great injury or death. And such rules, in order to be of any value, must be in some reasonable degree accommodated to human character and necessity. They should not be allowed to entrap or mislead those whose misfortunes compel a resort to them.

People v. Richardson, 490 Mich. 115, 128-29, 803 N.W.2d 302, 309 (2011) (citing People v. Pond, 8 Mich. 150 (1860))

“A man may repel force by force in defense of his person, habitation or property, against anyone who manifestly intends or endeavors by violence or surprise to commit a known felony on either, and if he kill him in so doing, it is justifiable homicide: 1 East P. C., 271; Foster, 273; 2 Bish. Cr. L., §§ 553, 569; Gray v. Combs, 7 J. J. Marsh., 482; U. S. v. Travers (Justice Story’s opinion), 2 Whart. Cr. C., 497; Hinchliff’s Case, 1 Lewin Cr. C., 168.” Pond, 8 Mich. 150, 170 (1860). It must logically follow from this rule, that a man may use whatever force may be necessary to make his defense effectual; otherwise the rule is a nullity, and means nothing. Id.

All crime, . . . can and should be resisted; but whether the degree of force used be necessary, and whether resistance unto death be justifiable in any particular case, are not matters of law for the court, but fact for the jury, to be submitted to them under the law and the evidence.

Pond, 8 Mich. 150, 171-72 (1860) (citing State v. Clement, 32 Me., 279)

Generally, “the killing of another person in self-defense by one who is free from fault is justifiable homicide if, under all the circumstances, he honestly and reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that it is necessary for him to exercise deadly force.” People v. Riddle, 467 Mich. 116, 119, 649 N.W.2d 30, 34 (2002).

Additionally, “the necessity element of self-defense normally requires that the actor try to avoid the use of deadly force if he can safely and reasonably do so, for example by applying non deadly force or by utilizing an obvious and safe avenue of retreat.” Id.

“When a person is in his ‘castle,’ there is no safer place to retreat; the obligation to retreat that would otherwise exist in such circumstances is no longer present, and the homicide will be deemed justifiable.” Id.

People v. Riddle further elaborates on the castle doctrine by providing three concepts related to self-defense and the use of deadly force. “First, a person is never required to retreat from a sudden, fierce, and violent attack; nor is he required to retreat from an attacker who he reasonably believes is about to use a deadly weapon.” Id. “Second, Michigan law imposes an affirmative obligation to retreat upon a non aggressor only in one narrow set of circumstances: A participant in voluntary mutual combat will not be justified in taking the life of another until he is deemed to have retreated as far as safely possible.” Id. Lastly, “regardless of the circumstances, one who is attacked in his dwelling is never required to retreat where it is otherwise necessary to exercise deadly force in self-defense.” Id.

MCL 780.971 defines ‘dwelling’ as “a structure or shelter that is used permanently or temporarily as a place of abode, including an appurtenant structure attached to that structure or shelter.”

‘Business premises’ is defined as “a building or other structure used for the transaction of business, including an appurtenant structure attached to that building or other structure.” MCL 780.971

2. Use of deadly force in self-defense in Michigan

According to Michigan law, deadly force may be used in the following circumstances with no duty to retreat.

MCL 780.972 provides: (1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:

(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

(b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.

(2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.

MCL § 780.972

The Michigan Self Defense Act (SDA) does not define ‘deadly force’. The courts have however described the use of deadly force as “a circumstance in which the natural, probable, and foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s act is death.” People v. Pace, 102 Mich. App. 522, 534; 302 N.W.2d 216 (1980). “A threat to use deadly force implies an intent to carry out the threat if the demands are not met.” People v. Dillard, 115 Mich. App. 640, 646; 321 N.W.2d 757, 759 (1982).

3. Threat of deadly force in self-defense in Michigan

Black’s Law Dictionary defines non-deadly force as 1. Force that is neither intended nor likely to cause death or serious bodily harm; force intended to cause only minor bodily harm. 2. A threat of deadly force, such as displaying a knife.

The courts have interpreted ‘deadly force’ as a circumstance in which the “probable consequence of the Defendant’s act is death.” Pace, 102 Mich. App. 522. The courts have also stated that mere display of a knife would not amount to a deadly force rather it is a non deadly force. But as the courts have discussed, a threat to use deadly force implies an intention to use force if the demands are not met. Dillard, 115 Mich. App. 640. Hence a person may use deadly force in self defense against a threat of deadly force.

MCL 780.972 provides: An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.

Here ‘force other than deadly force’ may be interpreted as any force other than deadly force including non deadly force. A threat of deadly force is a non deadly force. Hence threat of deadly force may be brought within the scope of MCL 780.972. A threat of deadly force may be used if a person has an honest and reasonable belief that the use of that force is necessary in self-defense.

CONCLUSIONS

The Castle doctrine is an exception to the Michigan common law principle that a person has the duty to retreat as far and safely as possible before using deadly force. But the doctrine is not applicable outside a person’s dwelling or place of business. Use of deadly force in self-defense is justified if the person had an honest and reasonable belief of imminent danger. Threat of deadly force may be used in self defense.