Court Opinion

ID: 9568630
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:05:54.603107+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:51:35.988332
License: Public Domain

R. M. Maher, P.J.
(dissenting). As the majority *87has acknowledged, the use of Thomas’ plea as substantive evidence of defendant’s guilt would require reversal. People v Eldridge, 17 Mich App 306, 316-317; 169 NW2d 497 (1969). The majority then reasons that, because the evidence was merely used to negate self-defense, it is not substantive evidence of defendant’s guilt. I cannot concur in the latter proposition.
A defendant commits no crime when he acts in self-defense. LaFave & Scott, Criminal Law (1st ed), § 53, p 391. Cf. People v Deason, 148 Mich App 27; 384 NW2d 72 (1985) (imperfect self-defense). Moreover, the prosecution bears the burden of excluding the possibility that the defendant acted in self-defense. People v Bell, 155 Mich App 408, 413; 399 NW2d 542 (1986), and cases cited therein.
The prosecution is not precluded from indicting a defendant, bringing the matter on for trial or submitting any evidence to the jury because a defendant acted in self-defense. In short, there is nothing procedural or technical about self-defense. Self-defense goes to the very heart of the alleged criminal act. Any evidence which negates self-defense is clearly substantive.
I would therefore reverse defendant’s conviction.