People v. Riddle - 467 Mich. 116, 649 N.W.2d 30 (2002)

Rule:

The cardinal rule, applicable to all claims of self-defense, is that the killing of another person is justifiable homicide if, under all the circumstances, the defendant 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. As part and parcel of the necessity requirement that inheres in every claim of lawful self-defense, evidence that a defendant could have safely avoided using deadly force is normally relevant in determining whether it was reasonably necessary for him to kill his assailant. However, (1) one who is without fault is never obligated to retreat from a sudden, violent attack or to retreat when to do so would be unsafe, and in such circumstances, the presence of an avenue of retreat cannot be a factor in determining necessity; (2) our law imposes an affirmative duty to retreat only upon one who is at fault in voluntarily participating in mutual nondeadly combat; and (3) the castle doctrine permits one who is within his dwelling to exercise deadly force even if an avenue of safe retreat is available, as long as it is otherwise reasonably necessary to exercise deadly force.

Facts:

Marcel Riddle was convicted for the murder of a man in his backyard. On appeal, Riddle claimed he was entitled to the reversal of his convictions on the ground that the trial court denied his request for a jury instruction that under the castle doctrine he was not required to retreat before exercising deadly force in self-defense while in his yard. The prosecution contended that Michigan law imposed a duty to retreat upon a person who would exercise deadly force in self-defense defendant and contended that the castle doctrine should not be extended to the curtilage. The appellate court agreed with the prosecution's contentions and found no error in the trial court's decision.

Issue:

Is Riddle is entitled to the reversal of his convictions of second-degree murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm) on the ground that the trial court denied his request for a jury instruction that he was not required to retreat before exercising deadly force in self-defense while in his yard?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court held that Riddle was not entitled to a "castle exception" instruction in this case because he was in his yard and not in his dwelling when he used deadly force. However, Riddle was entitled to an instruction that adequately conveyed to the jury that, although he was required to avoid using deadly force if possible, he had no obligation to retreat if he honestly and reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of great bodily harm or death and that it was necessary to use deadly force in self-defense. The standard jury instruction that was given adequately imparted these principles.