Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices

Order 

October 24, 2018

156309

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 156309

COA: 330612

Oakland CC: 2014-251162-FC

ALEX JAY ADAMOWICZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 22, 2017 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE Part II of the Court of Appeals judgment 

titled, “Ineffective Assistance of Counsel,” and we REVERSE in part and VACATE in 

part Part II of the Court of Appeals judgment titled, “Prosecutorial Error.” 

With respect to the defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we 

determine that the development of a factual record is required for appellate consideration. 

See MCR 7.305(C)(8); MCR 7.211(C)(1)(a)(ii). With respect to the defendant’s claims 

of prosecutorial error, contrary to the Court of Appeals’ conclusion, the prosecutor erred 

by asking the jury to consider the defendant’s “moral duty” to retreat from his own 

dwelling in relation to his self-defense claim. Asking a jury to consider a defendant’s 

“moral duty” to retreat is inconsistent with the Self-Defense Act (SDA), MCL 780.971 et 

seq., legally irrelevant to such a claim, and creates a danger of confusion of the issues. 

See MRE 401; MRE 403. The prosecutor also erred by eliciting testimony and 

presenting argument regarding the defendant’s retrospective assessment of his ability to 

retreat, where it was undisputed that the defendant had no duty to retreat. “It is 

universally accepted that retreat is not a factor in determining whether a defensive killing 

was necessary when it occurred in the accused’s dwelling.” People v Riddle, 467 Mich 

116, 134 (2002). In a self-defense claim, the accused’s conduct is judged according to 

how the circumstances appeared to him at the time he acted. See e.g., Pond v People, 8 

Mich 150, 169 (1860). Thus, the prosecutor’s questioning and argument in this regard 

were legally irrelevant and created a danger of confusion of the issues. See MRE 401;
I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 October 24, 2018 

a1017

2

Clerk

MRE 403. We recognize that the Court of Appeals assumed, without deciding, that the 

prosecutor erred and determined that the defendant had nevertheless failed to demonstrate 

that the errors affected the outcome of his trial. However, given the significance of the 

prosecutor’s errors identified in this order, we VACATE the Court of Appeals’ prejudice 

analysis and REMAND for reconsideration of whether the prosecutorial errors 

constituted plain error affecting substantial rights. People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763 

(1999).

On remand, while retaining jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals shall remand this 

case to the Oakland Circuit Court to conduct an evidentiary hearing pursuant to People v 

Ginther, 390 Mich 436 (1973), to determine whether the defendant was deprived of his 

right to the effective assistance of counsel with respect to the failure to call an expert 

witness and the failure to object to the prosecutor’s errors identified above. At the 

conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court shall forward the record and its findings to the 

Court of Appeals, which shall then resolve the issues presented by the defendant. 

In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

We do not retain jurisdiction.