Nearly everyone has heard of and somewhat understands the self-defense doctrine.  The Trayvon Martin killing brought this issue to the national spotlight.  What does Michigan law say about self-defense?  As a general rule, killing another person in self-defense is justifiable homicide if, under all the circumstances, the killer honestly and reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that it is necessary for him to use deadly force. The necessity element of self-defense generally requires that the defender try to avoid the use of deadly force if he can safely and reasonably do so, for example by using non-deadly force or by utilizing an obvious and safe avenue of retreat.

There are, however, three caveats to this general rule. 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. In these circumstances, as long as he honestly and reasonably believes that it is necessary to exercise deadly force in self-defense, the defender’s failure to retreat is never a consideration when determining if the necessity element of self-defense is satisfied; instead, he may stand his ground and meet force with force. That is, where it is uncontested that the defendant was the victim of a sudden and violent attack, the Court should not instruct the jury to consider whether retreat was safe, reasonable, or even possible, because, in such circumstances, the law does not require that the defendant engage in such considerations.

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. One who is involved in a physical altercation in which he is a willing participant-referred to at common law as a “sudden affray” or a “chance medley”-is required to take advantage of any reasonable and safe avenue of retreat before using deadly force against his adversary, should the altercation escalate into a deadly encounter.

Third, regardless of the circumstances, one who is attacked in his home is never required to retreat where it is otherwise necessary to exercise deadly force in self-defense. 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. However, the castle doctrine is limited in application to the home and its attached appurtenances – it does not extend to the areas surrounding the home.

— Kassem Dakhlallah is a partner with Jaafar & Mahdi Law Group, P.C.  His practice focuses on complex litigation including class actions, representative actions, commercial litigation, civil forfeiture and personal injury. He can be reached at 313. 846.6400 and kassem@jaafarandmahdi.com.