Court Opinion

ID: 9738366
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:51:23.654661+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:05.623343
License: Public Domain

Bashara, J.
(concurring in result). I agree with Judge Maher that the following self-defense instruction was reversible error:
"The defendant cannot be the aggressor in the situation; if so, he cannot claim self defense and, for that reason, it is important for the jury to consider all the circumstances and facts surrounding the beginning of this incident in order to determine who was the aggressor in the situation because, if the defendant was the aggressor under the circumstances, he cannot claim self defense in the case. (Emphasis supplied.)
The instruction may have misled the jury to believe that defendant in initiating the dispute by refusing to pay $3 was precluded from asserting self-defense. The defendant may only be held accountable as an aggressor for responsive conduct by another that is reasonably attributable to defendant’s own conduct. People v Townes, 391 Mich 578, 592; 218 NW2d 136 (1974).
However, I cannot agree with Judge Maher that the trial judge’s instruction regarding intent improperly shifted the burden to the defendant to come forward and explain acts which formed the basis of the mens rea. A careful reading of the entire intent instruction discloses that the burden of proof remained with the prosecutor.
Therefore, I concur with the result reached by Judge Maher.