Opinion ID: 848845
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the duty to retreat: sudden affray or chance medley

Text: Michigan law imposes an affirmative obligation to retreat, where safely possible, in one narrow set of circumstances: where a defendantwho is not in his castleis voluntarily engaged in mutual, nondeadly combat that escalates into sudden deadly violence. This represents the only type of situation in which the English common law imposed upon a defender an affirmative duty to retreat to the wall, Pond, supra at 174-175; Erwin, supra at 195; Perkins & Boyce, Criminal Law (3d ed.), pp. 1121-1123, 1126, and it is apparent from our case law that Michigan adhered to this rule at the time of the codification of our murder statute. As explained by Professors Perkins and Boyce, by reference to Foster, Crown Law (1762), the use of deadly force in self-defense at English common law was considered in light of the different positions of the parties involved. The first scenario involved a defendant who was without fault: One, entirely free from fault, is the victim of an assault which was murderous from the beginning. He is under no obligation to retreat ... but may stand his ground, and if he reasonably believes it necessary to use deadly force to save himself from death or great bodily harm, he is privileged to do so. [Perkins & Boyce, supra at 1121 (emphasis supplied).] Thus, at common law the innocent victim of a murderous assault had no affirmative duty to retreat; instead, if he reasonably believed that it was necessary under the circumstances to exercise deadly force, he could kill his assailant in self-defense. This rule is consistent with the generally applicable rules of self-defense as codified in Michigan's murder statutes, as discussed above. See Macard, supra at 21-22, 40 N.W. 784; Lennon, supra at 300-301, 38 N.W. 871; Brownell, supra at 738; Pond, supra at 177-178. However, an affirmative obligation to retreat applied to a voluntary participant in mutual combat: One who was the aggressor in a chance-medley (an ordinary fist fight, or other nondeadly encounter), or who culpably entered into such an engagement, finds that his adversary has suddenly and unexpectedly changed the nature of the contest and is resorting to deadly force. This ... is the only type of situation which requires retreat to the wall. Such a defender, not being entirely free from fault, must not resort to deadly force if there is any other reasonable method of saving himself. Hence if a reasonable avenue of escape is available to him he must take it unless he is in his castle at the time. [Perkins & Boyce, supra at 1121 (emphasis supplied).] Thus, the original concept of a `duty to retreat to the wall' applied not to the innocent victim of a murderous assault, but only to the culpable participant of a chance-medley. Perkins & Boyce, supra at 1225. [24] This principle was recognized by this Court in Pond, supra at 175-176: In [cases in which a defensive homicide occurred in a sudden affray], the original assault not being with a felonious intent, and the danger arising in the heat of blood on one or both sides, the homicide is not excused unless the slayer does all which is reasonably in his power to avoid the necessity of extreme resistance, by retreating where retreat is safe, or by any other expedient which is attainable. He is bound, if possible, to get out of his adversary's way, and has no right to stand up and resist if he can safely retreat or escape. Accordingly, we conclude that at the time of the codification of our first murder statute in 1846, the common-law rule in Michigan recognized only one instance in which an affirmative, specific duty to retreat applied, namely, when the defendant was the voluntary participant in mutual combat. [25]