Court of Appeals of Michigan Reverses Convictions Because Trial Judge Wrongly Ruled Self-Defense is Not a Defense to Voluntary Manslaughter

Under Michigan law (as in most jurisdictions), murder is a killing with malice aforethought, with malice aforethought being defined as “(1) the intent to kill, (2) the intent to do great bodily harm, or (3) a wanton and willful disregard of the likelihood that the natural tendency of the defendant’s act is to cause death or great bodily harm.” Meanwhile, voluntary manslaughter is a lesser-included offense of murder. With voluntary manslaughter, the defendant presents evidence that he was provoked and acted in the heat of passion, negating the malice aforethought of murder. 

So, with such negation, does that mean that self-defense is not a defense to voluntary manslaughter? That’s how the trial court ruled in the Terell Josey case, leading the Court of Appeals of Michigan to reverse his conviction this week in People v. Josey, 2025 WL 1165925 (Mich. App. 2025).

In Josey, 

During a road-rage incident, defendant, Terell Josey, shot and killed Francis Dombrowski. The prosecution charged Josey with open murder…as a result of the incident. During trial, Josey requested a self-defense jury instruction with respect to voluntary manslaughter as a lesser-included offense of murder. The trial court denied the request.

Specifically,

During trial, defense counsel requested that the jury be instructed that self-defense is a defense to voluntary manslaughter. The prosecutor opposed the request, arguing that self-defense requires an intentional act while voluntary manslaughter requires that the defendant lacked the capacity to commit an intentional act because of heat of passion and provocation. The prosecutor asserted that, therefore, self-defense and voluntary manslaughter were mutually exclusive, and the instruction was inappropriate. The trial court agreed with the prosecutor and denied the request.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Michigan reversed, ruling as follows:

We conclude that the trial court erred by denying Josey’s request for the voluntary manslaughter self-defense instruction. Although the trial court determined that its error was harmless, the video of the incident fails to support the court’s reasoning. The video depicts Dombrowski running toward Josey. Dombrowski did not appear to be concerned about Fuller, and his attention was not directed toward her. It is unknown whether Dombrowski was even aware that Josey’s young child was in the backseat of the Jeep. Dombrowski did not give any indication that he was aware of the child’s presence. Rather than focusing his attention on Fuller or the child, Dombrowski’s attention was focused solely on Josey. The jury may have rejected Josey’s claim that he acted in defense of Fuller and his son because, as the video shows, they were not in danger. They were safely inside the Jeep while Dombrowski’s attention was on Josey outside the Jeep. Therefore, the record evidence does not support the trial court’s reason for determining that the omitted instruction was harmless.

Further, the trial court’s failure to provide the instruction was not harmless. Because Josey presented evidence that he acted in self-defense, he was entitled to a self-defense jury instruction….Although the trial court instructed the jury on self-defense with respect to murder, the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on self-defense with respect to voluntary manslaughter denied Josey his constitutional right to present a defense to the shooting. If Josey shot Dombrowski because he honestly and reasonably believed that doing so was necessary to prevent his imminent death or great bodily harm, his actions were justified regardless of the offense he was alleged to have committed. But, the trial court’s jury instructions informed the jury that it could conclude that Josey’s actions were justified with respect to murder, but not with respect to voluntary manslaughter. Therefore, the instructions denied Josey his constitutional right to present a defense.

-CM