People v. Dupree PDF

Preview

Summary

People v. Dupree Casebrief...

Description

Week 6, Relevancy and Materiality Citation: PEOPLE v. DUPREE 486 Mich. 693 (2010). Facts: In trial court, the defendant was convicted of felon in possession of firearm. The Defendant, a felon, got in a physical confrontation with Reeves. Reeves started the fight and he was armed, drunk and taller than the Defendant which made him fear for his life. During the struggle Reeves’ gun fell off his strap, the Defendant grabbed it and shot him three times before fleeing the scene. The Defense claims it was self-defense. Rule of Law: MCL 750.224f, MCL 769.12 People v. Grant, People v. Grott. Common-Law Self-Defense. Due Process Clause. Issue: Did the trial court err in giving the momentary innocent possession defense instead of the traditional common law affirmative defense when the prosecution did not resist the Defendant’s argument regarding the availability of self-defense? Procedural History: The trial court gave the jury the momentary innocent possession defense instructions instead of the traditional common law affirmative defense for the felon-ion-possession charge. The jury found the defendant guilty. The Defense appealed the decision on procedural grounds and the Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial. They found that under the facts of the case, self-defense was an acceptable common law affirmative defense. Michigan SC affirms the Appeal Courts findings that the defendant has the right to a new trial for the felonin-possession charge with the traditional common law affirmative defense jury instructions. Holding: Yes, the trial erred in err in giving the momentary innocent possession defense instead of the traditional common law affirmative defense because the Defense properly met their burden while the Prosecution failed to so. The traditional common law self-defense defense should have been given. Reasoning: The Michigan SC found that once the Defendant satisfies the initial burden of production, the Prosecution bears the burden of disproving the common law defense of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. The Michigan SC found that the Defendant properly raised the common law affirmative defense of self-defense before the trial court. The Defendant introduced testimony to support his self-defense theory at trial. The Defendant requested a standard self-defense jury instruction for all charges. The Prosecution did not object to such requests but the trial court still gave momentary innocent possession defense instructions. Concurring/Dissenting Opinions: The Concurring in part and Dissenting in part opinion concurs with the result, the burden of proof, procedural and harmful error. The Dissenting part argues that the issue of Duress was properly raised and there was sufficient evidence while the others argued it was raised in Appeals instead of trial court so it they could not address it.

Significance: The Michigan SC findings show that once the Defendant satisfies the initial burden of producing some evidence from which a jury could conclude that the elements necessary to establish prima facie defense of self-defense exist, the prosecution bears the burden of disproving the affirmative defense of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. This decision establishes precedent for future affirmative defense cases....