DEFENSE OF SELF & OTHERS S.B. 1046 & 1185 and H.B. 5142, 5143, 5153, & 5548: ENROLLED ANALYSIS Senate Bills 1046 and 1185 (as enrolled) House Bills 5142, 5143, 5153, and 5548 (as enrolled) Sponsor: Senator Alan L. Cropsey (S.B. 1046) Senator Ron Jelinek (S.B. 1185) Representative Tom Casperson (H.B. 5142) Representative Rick Jones (H.B. 5143) Representative Leslie Mortimer (H.B. 5153) Representative Tim Moore (H.B. 5548) Senate Committee: Judiciary House Committee: Judiciary Date Completed: 7-17-06 RATIONALE Michigan law regarding a person’s right to individual, without a duty to retreat, use deadly force in self-defense is not if he or she were not engaged in the expressed in statute, but is embodied in the commission of a crime and honestly common law as interpreted by case law. and reasonably believed that force According to a 2002 Michigan Supreme was necessary to prevent imminent Court case (People v Riddle, 467 Mich 116), death, bodily harm, or sexual assault. a person has the right to use deadly force in -- Specify that an individual could use self-defense if he or she honestly and less-than-lethal force against reasonably believes that using such force is another individual, without a duty to necessary because he or she is in danger of retreat, if he or she were not imminent death or great bodily harm. engaged in the commission of a Generally, a person acting in self-defense crime and honestly and reasonably has a duty to retreat from the attack if he or believed that force was necessary in she can do so safely, but retreat is never defense against the other individual’s required in the person’s own home, nor is imminent unlawful use of force. retreat required in the case of a sudden and -- State that, except as provided above, fierce violent attack or if the person honestly the proposed Act would not modify and reasonably believes the attacker is the common law with regard to the about to use a deadly weapon. Some duty to retreat before using deadly people believe that the right to defend force or force other than deadly against an attack, and the circumstances force. under which force is justified in self-defense -- Provide that the proposed Act would or the defense of others, should be codified not diminish self-defense rights and that a person defending himself, herself, available under the common law. or another should not have to retreat when he or she is anywhere he or she has a legal Senate Bill 1046 and House Bill 5153 right to be. would create new acts, Senate Bill 1185 and House Bill 5548 would amend the CONTENT Revised Judicature Act, and House Bill 5142 would amend the Code of Criminal House Bill 5143 would create the “Self- Procedure, to do all of the following: Defense Act” to do all of the following: -- Establish a rebuttable presumption in -- Specify that a person could use a civil or criminal case that a person deadly force against another who used force in compliance with Page 1 of 8 sb1046etal./0506 the proposed Self-Defense Act had an The bill specifies that, except as provided honest and reasonable belief that above, it would not modify Michigan’s imminent death, sexual assault, or common law in existence on October 1, great bodily harm would occur if 2006, regarding the duty to retreat before certain conditions existed, and using deadly force or force other than deadly specify circumstances under which force. The bill also states that it would not the presumption would not apply. diminish an individual’s right to use force, in -- Specify that a duty to retreat before self-defense or defense of another using deadly force would not apply if individual, as provided by Michigan’s an individual were in his or her own common law in existence on that date. dwelling or within the curtilage of that dwelling. Senate Bill 1046 -- Provide that an individual who used force in compliance with the Under the bill, it would be a rebuttable proposed Self-Defense Act would presumption in a civil or criminal case that commit no crime in using that force. an individual who used deadly force or force -- Establish civil immunity for a person other than deadly force in compliance with who used force in compliance with the proposed Self-Defense Act had an the proposed Self-Defense Act. honest and reasonable belief that imminent -- Require a court to award attorney death of, sexual assault of, or great bodily fees and costs to a person sued for harm to himself or herself or another using force, if that use of force were individual would occur, if both of the in compliance with the proposed following applied: Self-Defense Act and the person were immune from civil liability (as -- The person against whom force was used provided above). was in the process of breaking and entering a dwelling or business premises The bills are tie-barred and would take effect or committing home invasion, had broken on October 1, 2006. and entered a dwelling or business premises or committed home invasion House Bill 5143 and was still present in the dwelling or business premises, or was unlawfully Under the proposed Self-Defense Act, an attempting to remove another individual individual who had not or was not engaged from a dwelling, business premises, or in the commission of a crime could use occupied vehicle against his or her will. deadly force against another person, -- The individual using force honestly and anywhere he or she had the legal right to reasonably believed that the person was be, with no duty to retreat, if the individual engaging in conduct described above. honestly and reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary to The rebuttable presumption would not apply, prevent either of the following: however, if any of the following circumstances existed: -- The imminent death of, or imminent great bodily harm to, himself or herself or -- The person against whom force was used, another individual. including an owner, lessee, or titleholder, -- The imminent sexual assault of himself or had the legal right to be in the dwelling, herself or another individual. business premises, or vehicle and there was not an injunction for protection from An individual who had not or was not domestic violence or a written pretrial engaged in the commission of a crime also supervision order, a probation order, or a could use force, other than deadly force, parole order of no contact against that against another individual anywhere he or person. she had the legal right to be, with no duty to -- The individual removed or being removed retreat, if he or she honestly and reasonably from the dwelling, business premises, or believed that the use of that force was occupied vehicle was a child or grandchild necessary to defend himself or herself or of, or was otherwise in the lawful custody another individual from the imminent of or under the lawful guardianship of, unlawful use of force by another individual. the person against whom force was used. Page 2 of 8 Bill Analysis @ www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa sb1046etal./0506 -- The individual who used force was Senate Bill 1185 engaged in the commission of a crime or was using the dwelling, business The bill would require the court to award the premises, or occupied vehicle to further payment of actual attorney fees and costs to the commission of a crime. an individual who was sued for civil damages -- The person against whom force was used for allegedly using deadly force or force was a peace officer who had entered or other than deadly force against another was attempting to enter a dwelling, person, if the court determined that the business premises, or vehicle in the individual used force in compliance with the performance of his or her official duties in proposed Self-Defense Act and that the accordance with applicable law. individual was immune from civil liability under Section 2922b of the Revised The presumption also would not apply if the Judicature Act (which House Bill 5548 would person using the force had a history of enact). domestic violence as the aggressor and the individual against whom force was used House Bill 5142 were his or her spouse or former spouse, an individual with whom he or she had a dating The bill specifies that, in cases in which the relationship, an individual with whom he or proposed Self-Defense Act did not apply, she had a child in common, or a resident or Michigan’s common law would apply, except former resident of his or her household. that the duty to retreat before using deadly force would not be required if an individual The bill would define “dwelling” as a were in his or her own dwelling or within the structure or shelter that is used permanently curtilage of that dwelling. or temporarily as a place of abode, including an appurtenant structure attached to that “Dwelling” would mean a structure or shelter structure or shelter. “Business premises” that is used permanently or temporarily as a would mean a building or other structure place of abode, including an appurtenant used for the transaction of business, structure attached to that structure or including an appurtenant structure attached shelter. to that building or other structure. “Vehicle” would mean a conveyance of any kind, House Bill 5153 whether or not motorized, that is designed to transport people or property. The bill specifies that an individual who used deadly force or force other than deadly force “Domestic violence” would mean that term in compliance with the proposed Self- as defined in the domestic violence Defense Act and who had not or was not prevention and treatment Act, i.e., the engaged in committing a crime at the time occurrence of any of the following acts by a he or she used force, would commit no person that is not an act of self-defense: crime in using that force.