Court Opinion

ID: 9685089
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:22:59.011567+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:02.213828
License: Public Domain

D. F. Walsh, J.
(concurring). I concur in the result reached by the majority. I write separately to express by disagreement with the majority’s conclusion that the "reasonable belief’ standard is the proper one for determining the validity of a claim of self-defense. In my judgment, the correct test is whether the accused "actually” or "honestly” believes himself to be in danger of death or great bodily harm. People v Robinson, 79 Mich App 145, 158; 261 NW2d 544 (1977).
It would be inconsistent for the trier of fact to find on the one hand that the defendant actually and honestly believed that he was in danger of *708death or great bodily harm when he acted to defend himself but, on the other hand, that he nevertheless had the requisite criminal intent to commit the crime. It seems to me, therefore, that if a trier of fact is convinced that an accused acted to defend himself because he honestly and actually believed that he was in danger of death or great bodily harm, it must find that he acted in justifiable self-defense even if it is not also persuaded that the belief was reasonable. As this Court said in Robinson, supra, the reasonableness of the belief may properly be considered by the jury but only as a factor in determining whether the accused’s alleged belief that he was in danger was actual and honest.
The majority cites People v Doss, 406 Mich 90; 276 NW2d 9 (1979), as authority for its conclusion that an accused’s belief that he was in danger must be "reasonable”. However, the issue as to whether the "reasonable belief’ test or the "actual belief’ test is the correct one for determining a claim of self-defense was not presented to the court for decision in that case. The discussion relied upon by the majority, therefore, is nondecisional and does not constitute binding precedent.