Court Opinion

ID: 9735666
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:27:09.15471+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:00.789823
License: Public Domain

Marilyn Kelly, J.
(concurring). I concur in the result. However, I disagree with the position of the *711majority with respect to the Landrum1 decision. The defendant is entitled to have the jury specifically instructed that she had the right to defend herself from being raped by using force, including deadly force.
The standard instruction on self defense informs jurors that deadly force may be used when one is "in danger of being killed or receiving great bodily harm.” It leaves the door open for a juror to decide that forcible rape in a given case would have caused neither death nor great bodily harm. The juror could then reasonably conclude that the accused was not entitled to kill the rapist to prevent the rape. The instructions must inform the jury explicitly that, if it reasonably appeared necessary to the person assailed, she was entitled to use deadly force to repel a rapist. Anything less vitiates the Landrum holding.
In this particular case, the refusal of the trial judge properly to tailor the instruction was error, but it was harmless. Defendant bludgeoned the deceased ten times and stabbed him thirty-two times. Some of the wounds appeared to have been inflicted while he attempted to crawl away. The judge instructed the jury that defendant claimed she acted in lawful self-defense. Although they were not told she was entitled to use deadly force, no reasonable juror could have believed such force was necessary to prevent rape by the enfeebled deceased._

 People v Landrum, 160 Mich App 159; 407 NW2d 614 (1986), vacated and remanded for reconsideration on other grounds 430 Mich 861 (1988); People v Landrum (On Remand), 171 Mich App 148; 429 NW2d 818 (1988), lv gtd 431 Mich 905 (1988).