Duress a Viable Defense to Felony Murder

-
Can a defendant, charged with felony murder, argue duress as an affirmative defense to the crime? Yesterday, the Michigan Supreme Court answered in the affirmative, overruling two Court of Appeals decisions from the 1990's.  In People v Tiffany Reichard, ___ Mich ___ (Docket No 157688), March 30, 2020, Justice Viviano authored the opinion on behalf of a unanimous court, concluding that the defendant, who wished to present evidence that her boyfriend had physically abused her, could argue in her trial that she committed the underlying felony under duress and, therefore, was not guilty of felony murder.

After bindover on the felony murder charge, Reichard moved the lower court to allow her to present the defense.  The trial court, Judge Thomas Wilson from Jackson County, agreed.  The prosecution filed an interlocutory application to the Court of Appeals which reversed the trial court.

At common law, courts banned the use of duress as a defense to murder.  When faced with the choice of sparing his own life or that of an innocent, the law expects that the defendant choose to spare the innocent person's life rather than his own.  Michigan and several other states follow this principle.

When the charge is felony murder (MCL 750.316(1)(b)), the prosecution must prove a defendant possessed one of the three intents necessary for second degree murder and the intent to commit the underlying offense (or aid or abet another in the commission).  If all elements are satisfied, the crime is elevated to first degree murder.  Duress could, however, be a defense to the underlying crime if it were tried alone, and, if believed, entitle the defendant to an acquittal.  A defendant is not choosing between sparing his life or that of an innocent, he is choosing between committing the underlying crime and his own life.  Therefore, duress could be a viable defense to a charge of felony murder if it is a defense to the underlying crime.  To hold otherwise could lead to an absurd result that a defendant is found not guilty of the underlying offense, but guilty of felony murder.

The Court went further and said that nothing prevents a prosecutor from convicting a defendant of second degree murder or some lesser degree of murder if the facts of the case support it.  Duress is still no defense to murder, only the underlying offense used to elevate lesser forms of murder to first degree.  The Court remanded the case to the trial court for trial with the included instruction on the defense of duress if the defendant chooses and a rational view of the evidence supports it.

The defendant was represented by Michael Faraone of Lansing.  Jackson County APA Jerrold Schrotenboer handled the appeal for the prosecution.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

MSC Rules Duress Defense Applies to 2d Degree Murder Car Crash

-
Image
  Yesterday, in a 4-3 decision with a concurrence and two dissenting opinions, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that duress is an available defense to one form of 2d Degree Murder - willful and wanton disregard that the natural tendency of the act is to cause death or great bodily harm - often referred to as "depraved heart" murder. Justice Bridget McCormack , probably writing her final opinion as a member of the bench, was joined by Justices Bernstein, Cavanagh and Welch in the opinion in People v Gafken , Docket No.  161835 .  Theresa Gafken was convicted of second degree murder in the St. Clair County Circuit Court, MCL 750.317.  The evidence showed she drove her car, while running from the police, at speeds in excess of 100 MPH.   She ran a red light and collided with other vehicles, killing one person and severely injuring several others.  The prosecution's theory was that Gafken had intended to do an act that was in willful and wanton disregard of the likelihood of
Read more

Warrant Needed for a Barn Outside the Curtilage?

-
Image
Yesterday, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v Brigitte Louise Rousse, Docket No. 358358 (May 5, 2022) , an opinion that held police, with an otherwise valid search warrant, lacked the authority to search the interior of a pole barn located outside the curtilage of the home. An animal control officer discovered a cow loose on the road near the Defendant's home.  Upon returning the cow to its pen, he observed numerous dead animals on the property in various states of decomposition.  He saw three dogs on the property that were emaciated. The Defendant had no explanation for how the animals died.  From one of the pole barns that could be observed from the road and the house, he heard the yipping of dogs.  The officer obtained a search warrant for the property.  However, in the description of the place to be searched, the officer listed only the description of the house, making no mention of the pole barns on the property.  A search of one of the pole barns rev
Read more

My Interview with Justice Maura Corrigan

-
Image
I noticed that the Court of Appeals has issued two published opinions this week dealing with criminal law, but before I post those to our blog, I wanted to alert everyone to a new feature we will be offering to our readers. Today, I am launching a new podcast called "Assistance of Counsel." By following the link here and to the right, you will be able to listen to an exclusive interview I recently had with Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan. Justice Corrigan was gracious enough to sit down with me and discuss various topics dealing with her career, her personal life, the day-to-day operations of the Michigan Supreme Court and the history of the court. Justice Corrigan has been on the Supreme Court since 1999, and the interview is very informative for anyone interested in the inner workings of the Court and Justice Corrigan in particular. Our new podcast offering will be an added feature linked to our blog and to our website, www.floodlaw.com. Soon, as well, our podcast
Read more