Charged after defending yourself? Michigan self-defense law and what the prosecutor has to disprove
I am Mitchell Bisson, a Grand Rapids criminal defense lawyer. I have litigated for over 15 years. This page covers self-defense and defense of others under Michigan law: what the Self-Defense Act says, when there is no duty to retreat, who carries the burden of proof, and what happens to a self-defense claim between the arrest and the verdict. I do not promise outcomes.
The short answer. Under MCL 780.972, a person who has not and is not engaged in a crime, and who is somewhere he or she has a legal right to be, may use deadly force with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent imminent death, imminent great bodily harm or imminent sexual assault. Force short of deadly force has its own standard. Self-defense is an affirmative defense: the defendant has to produce some evidence of it, and then the prosecution has to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Nothing here predicts how your case will end.
Self-defense does not stop a prosecutor from charging you. A companion statute, the use of deadly force act, says that a person who uses force in compliance with the Self-Defense Act, and who is not engaged in a crime at the time, commits no crime, and it also says that a prosecutor who believes the force was unjustified may charge the person and must present evidence at the warrant stage, at any preliminary examination and at trial that the force was not justified. MCL 780.961(1), (2). So the question in a Kent County courtroom is usually whether the evidence shows that this person, in this situation, met the rules.
These cases come out of fights, confrontations at home, road incidents, break-ins and shootings, and the first seconds usually decide them: who moved first, what was said, what the person using force could see and whether there was a safe way out. This page walks through the law I work with, then how I handle a case. It is general information about Michigan law, and nothing here predicts how any case will end.
How Michigan self-defense law is built
Michigan has a statute, the Self-Defense Act, and an older common-law defense that the statute left in place. The table sets out the parts, and a charge has to be checked against all of them.
| Issue | What the law says | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Deadly force | No duty to retreat for a person not engaged in a crime, anywhere he or she has the legal right to be, who honestly and reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death, great bodily harm or sexual assault of self or another | MCL 780.972(1) |
| Force other than deadly force | Same conditions, with an honest and reasonable belief that force is necessary to defend self or another from the imminent unlawful use of force | MCL 780.972(2) |
| Retreat where the Act does not apply | The common law of retreat stays in place, except that there is no duty to retreat before deadly force in your own dwelling or its curtilage | MCL 780.973; MCL 768.21c(1) |
| Break-in presumption | A rebuttable presumption of an honest and reasonable belief when the person was breaking into a dwelling or business, or unlawfully trying to remove someone from a dwelling, business or occupied vehicle. Five exceptions apply | MCL 780.951(1), (2) |
| Burden of proof | The defendant must produce some evidence of the defense. The prosecution then must disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt | People v. Dupree, 486 Mich. 693, 712 (2010) |
| Civil suits | Immunity from civil liability for force used in compliance with the Act, with attorney fees and costs awarded to the person sued | MCL 600.2922b; MCL 600.2922c |
What the Self-Defense Act requires
Not engaged in a crime, and a right to be there. The no-retreat rule is written for an individual “who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force.” MCL 780.972(1). The Act protects a person “anywhere he or she has the legal right to be,” and subsection (2) uses the same conditions for lesser force. If you were committing a crime at the time, the statute’s protection is in question, but the common-law defense is a separate matter. The Act does not diminish the common-law right as it stood on October 1, 2006, and the Michigan Supreme Court has held that, aside from limiting the duty to retreat, the Act did not modify or abrogate the common-law defenses of self-defense and defense of others. MCL 780.974; People v. Leffew, 508 Mich. 625 (2022).
An honest and reasonable belief. Both words count. The model instruction tells jurors to judge the defendant’s conduct by how the circumstances appeared to the defendant at the time, and that a person whose belief was honest and reasonable may act immediately even if it later turns out he or she was wrong about how much danger there was. M Crim JI 7.15(2), (3).
More than a minor injury. The instruction says a person may not kill or seriously injure another person just to protect against what seems like a threat of only minor injury. Jurors consider all the circumstances, including relative strength, whether the other person was armed or had some other means of injuring the defendant, the nature of the attack or threat, and any previous violent acts or threats the defendant knew about. M Crim JI 7.15(4).
Necessity and the amount of force. A person may only use as much force as he or she thinks is necessary at the time, and jurors may weigh both whether the defendant knew of other ways to protect himself or herself and how the excitement of the moment affected the choice. M Crim JI 7.15(5). For lesser force, the right to defend lasts only as long as it seems necessary for protection. M Crim JI 7.22(4), (5).
Defending someone else. Both subsections of the statute reach force used to protect “another individual,” and M Crim JI 7.21 and 7.22 carry the parallel rules. The question is what you honestly and reasonably believed about the danger to the other person.
Retreat, your home and your car
A person who meets the conditions of the Act has no duty to retreat. MCL 780.972(1), (2). When the Act does not apply, the common law of retreat remains, except that a person in his or her own dwelling, or within its curtilage, need not retreat before using deadly force. MCL 780.973; MCL 768.21c(1). The Supreme Court described the older rules in People v. Riddle: “a person is never required to retreat from a sudden, fierce, and violent attack; nor is he required to retreat from an attacker who he reasonably believes is about to use a deadly weapon.” 467 Mich. 116, 119 (2002). In People v. Richardson, the Court wrote that a defendant on his own porch had no duty to retreat, and it found no prejudice from the instruction given because the jury had been told that a person attacked in his or her home has no duty to retreat. 490 Mich. 115, 117, 119 to 121 (2011).
The model instruction on retreat lets jurors consider whether the defendant could have safely retreated, but its use note says that paragraph should be given only if there is a dispute whether the defendant had a duty to retreat. M Crim JI 7.16(1) and use note.
The break-in presumption. When the person against whom force was used was breaking and entering a dwelling or business or committing home invasion, had done so and was still there, or was unlawfully attempting to remove another individual from a dwelling, business or occupied vehicle against his or her will, and the defendant honestly and reasonably believed that was happening, it is a rebuttable presumption that the defendant had an honest and reasonable belief that imminent death, sexual assault or great bodily harm would occur. MCL 780.951(1). The prosecutor can overcome it by proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not have that belief. M Crim JI 7.16a(1). The statute lists five situations where the presumption does not apply, including where the person against whom force was used had a legal right to be in the dwelling, business or vehicle and no injunction or no-contact order was in place, and where the defendant was engaged in a crime. MCL 780.951(2).
Vehicles are treated more narrowly than homes. The Court of Appeals has said a defendant in a motor vehicle, as opposed to a dwelling or business, can rely on the presumption only when the other person was unlawfully attempting to remove the defendant from the occupied vehicle, and it upheld a trial court’s refusal to give the presumption instruction where the evidence was that the victim grabbed at or jiggled the door handle. People v. Thigpen, 349 Mich. App. 437 (2023).
Who has to prove self-defense
The Supreme Court put it this way: “Once a defendant satisfies the initial burden of producing some evidence from which a jury could conclude that the elements necessary to establish a prima facie defense of self-defense exist, the prosecution bears the burden of disproving the affirmative defense of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.” People v. Dupree, 486 Mich. 693, 712 (2010). The model instruction matches that. It tells jurors that the defendant does not have to prove self-defense and that the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense. Its use note says it is given where there is some evidence of self-defense, and that if there is no such evidence, no self-defense instructions are given. M Crim JI 7.20 and use note.
The first step is the one people overlook. A defendant asserting an affirmative defense has to produce some evidence on all of its elements before the trial court must instruct the jury on it. People v. Guajardo, 300 Mich. App. 26, 35 (2013). In Guajardo the trial court refused a self-defense instruction, and the Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion because there was no evidence that would let a juror conclude the defendant honestly and reasonably believed deadly force was necessary, and because the defendant’s own account was that the rifle went off by accident. 300 Mich. App. at 44 to 45. The practical point is that the theory of the case and the testimony have to fit together. “It was an accident” and “I had to shoot” pull in different directions, and I decide with you how the evidence will be framed before a jury hears any of it.
How a self-defense claim gets lost
The initial aggressor. In general, a defendant does not act in justifiable self-defense when he or she uses excessive force or is the initial aggressor. People v. Guajardo, 300 Mich. App. 26, 35 (2013). A person who started an assault with deadly force or with a dangerous or deadly weapon cannot claim self-defense unless he or she genuinely stopped and clearly let the other person know he or she wanted to make peace. M Crim JI 7.18. A person who started the trouble with fists, a weapon that is not deadly or only words does not lose all right to self-defense, but if the other person responds with deadly force, the defendant may act in self-defense only if he or she retreated where it would have been safe to do so. M Crim JI 7.16(1). For lesser force, the person must not have acted wrongfully and brought on the assault, though words alone do not prevent the claim. M Crim JI 7.22(6).
Too much force, or force that outlasted the need. The facts that hurt most come after the threat has passed: a second shot, continued blows, pursuit. I go through any video frame by frame.
Another crime at the same time. A person who was doing something else unlawful when the confrontation began does not necessarily lose the defense. The use notes to M Crim JI 7.15 and 7.16 say the court may instruct that a defendant does not lose the right to self-defense if the other offense was not likely to lead to the other person’s assaultive behavior, and that the committee expresses no opinion where the other offense may lead to assaultive behavior. M Crim JI 7.15 and 7.16 use notes.
Evidence about the other person’s violence
In a homicide case in which self-defense is an issue, a defendant may offer evidence of the alleged victim’s trait for aggression, and if it is admitted the prosecution may offer evidence of the defendant’s same trait and of the alleged victim’s trait for peacefulness. MRE 404(a)(2)(B). That text is written for homicide cases, so I check what route is open in an assault case. The model instruction lets jurors use specific past violent acts the defendant knew about, and a general reputation for violence, in deciding whether the defendant honestly and reasonably feared for his or her safety. M Crim JI 7.23. In People v. Harris, the Supreme Court wrote that while specific acts of violence are not admissible to show a character trait of the victim, the reputation evidence in that case would tend to show that the defendant’s fear of the victim was a reality. 458 Mich. 310, 321 (1998). I ask what you knew about the other person before that day, and who else knew it.
How self-defense works on common charges
Assault with a weapon and pointing a gun. Felonious assault is an assault with a gun, knife, club or other dangerous weapon, without intent to commit murder or to inflict great bodily harm less than murder, and it is a felony punishable by up to 4 years in prison or a fine of up to $2,000, or both. MCL 750.82(1). In People v. Ogilvie, the defendant pointed a loaded gun at another person. The Court of Appeals agreed that a threat of deadly force is not the use of deadly force and held that the jury instructions, which treated the act as deadly force, were erroneous. 341 Mich. App. 28 (2022). The model instruction on brandishing now says in a use note that Ogilvie holds merely pointing a firearm is not deadly force. M Crim JI 7.25a use note.
Brandishing. The brandishing statute does not apply to a person “lawfully acting in self-defense or defense of another under the self-defense act.” MCL 750.234e(2)(b). A violation is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 90 days or a fine of up to $100, or both. MCL 750.234e(3).
A gun you were not allowed to have. The Supreme Court held in People v. Dupree that the traditional common-law affirmative defense of self-defense is generally available to a defendant charged with being a felon in possession if supported by sufficient evidence. 486 Mich. 693, 712 (2010). The Court of Appeals later held that a felon possessing a firearm is not precluded from asserting self-defense under the Act when the evidence would let a jury conclude the possession was justified by an honest and reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary. People v. Guajardo, 300 Mich. App. 26, 44 (2013). M Crim JI 7.25 is the model instruction for that charge.
Homicide. Self-defense is also raised in murder and manslaughter cases. The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of imperfect self-defense “does not exist in Michigan law as a freestanding defense mitigating murder to voluntary manslaughter,” although “factual circumstances that have been characterized as imperfect self-defense may negate the malice element of second-degree murder.” People v. Reese, 491 Mich. 127, 130 (2012).
From arrest to the preliminary examination
Neither the Self-Defense Act (MCL 780.971 to 780.974) nor the charging statute sets up a separate pretrial immunity hearing. Self-defense is raised in the ordinary course of the case, and the prosecutor must present evidence at the warrant stage, at any preliminary examination and at trial that the force was not justified. MCL 780.961(2). A magistrate who finds at the end of the examination that a felony was committed and that there is probable cause to charge the defendant binds the defendant over to appear within 14 days for arraignment in circuit court. A magistrate who finds otherwise discharges the defendant or reduces the charge to an offense that is not a felony. MCL 766.13.
The Court of Appeals has said, in a published opinion, that criminal defenses are considered at the preliminary examination. Where a defendant presents a complete defense on undisputed evidence, binding the defendant over would be improper, but where the evidence allows diverging inferences, the dispute is for a jury at trial. People v. Schurr, 350 Mich. App. 47 (2024). I use the examination to commit the witnesses and officers to their accounts under oath.
Civil immunity after a justified use of force
A person who used force in self-defense or defense of another in compliance with section 2 of the Act is immune from civil liability for damages caused to the person against whom the force was authorized and to anyone claiming damages based on a relationship to that person. MCL 600.2922b. If a court determines the person used force in compliance and is immune, it shall award actual attorney fees and costs to the person sued. MCL 600.2922c. What you say in a civil matter can be used in the criminal case, so the two have to be handled in the right order.
How I handle a self-defense case
- Get your account first, and keep it private. I want the full story from you, including the parts that look bad, and I ask you not to tell it to anyone else.
- Preserve the evidence. I send preservation requests for 911 calls, dispatch audio, body camera and dash camera video, and any business or doorbell video. Video is kept for limited periods, so this goes first.
- Map the charge to the rules. I work out whether deadly or lesser force is at issue, whether the Act or the common law governs retreat, and whether any presumption or exception applies.
- Use the preliminary examination. I question the witnesses on what they saw, who moved first and what the other person was doing, and I raise self-defense at that stage when the facts support it.
- File the motions the facts support. That can include a motion to exclude a statement, a motion to dismiss, and motions on what evidence about the other person may come in.
- Weigh every offer against the defense, and prepare the instructions with the trial. I explain what a plea would mean and decide which model instructions to request or oppose, because a wrong or missing instruction can matter on appeal.
Ways a self-defense case may end without a trial
None of these is automatic. Each depends on the facts, the evidence and the prosecutor.
Discharge or reduction at the examination. If the magistrate decides that no felony was committed or that there is no probable cause for charging one, the magistrate discharges the defendant or reduces the charge to a non-felony. MCL 766.13.
Dismissal. A prosecutor can dismiss a charge after reviewing video or new evidence, and a court can dismiss on a motion. I make the written record that gives either one a chance.
A negotiated plea. Some cases resolve with a plea to a lesser or different charge. A plea gives up the right to have a jury decide whether you acted in self-defense, so I go through what you would give up and what you would gain before you decide.
What I need from you
Bring the charging papers, the bond order and any police report or property receipt you were given. Write down your own timeline now, while it is fresh: where you were, who was there, what was said, what you saw in the other person’s hands, and what you did and in what order. List every witness. Save texts, photos, video, messages and medical records, and keep damaged clothing as it is. If you know of earlier threats or violence by the other person, write down what happened, when, and who else knew. Do not discuss the incident with police without a lawyer, with friends or on social media. Do not contact the other person or the witnesses. Do not delete anything. Call before you sign or agree to anything with the prosecutor or the police.
Where your Kent County self-defense case will be heard
I represent clients charged in Grand Rapids, Kentwood, Grandville, Wyoming and across Kent County. A felony case begins in district court with an arraignment and, if the case continues, a preliminary examination. Kent County district courts include the 61st District Court (the city of Grand Rapids), the 59th (the cities of Walker and Grandville), the 62A (the city of Wyoming), the 62B (the city of Kentwood) or the 63rd (the rest of Kent County). MCL 600.8130; MCL 600.8128a. If the magistrate binds the case over, it is arraigned in the Kent County Circuit Court, the 17th Judicial Circuit, where motions, plea negotiations and a jury trial take place. MCL 766.13; MCL 600.518.
Why people hire me for a Michigan self-defense matter
You work directly with me, the lawyer handling your case. I tell you where the defense is strong and where the evidence cuts against it. I do not promise outcomes. I build the case the facts support, and then we decide together how to proceed.
Fees depend on the charge, the complexity of the case and whether it is likely to go to trial. I explain my fee arrangement at the consultation, before you decide whether to hire me.
Questions I hear from people charged after using force in self-defense in Kent County
What does Michigan’s Self-Defense Act (the stand your ground law) actually say about using deadly force?
MCL 780.972(1) lets a person who is not engaged in a crime use deadly force, with no duty to retreat, anywhere he or she has a legal right to be, if he or she honestly and reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death, imminent great bodily harm, or imminent sexual assault of self or another. Both halves of the belief matter: it has to be honest and it has to be reasonable. The Act did not replace the older common-law defense, which still applies when the Act does not.
Do I have to try to retreat before I use force in Michigan?
Often not. Under MCL 780.972, a person who is not engaged in a crime and is somewhere he or she may lawfully be has no duty to retreat when the honest and reasonable belief the statute requires is present. Where the Act does not apply, the common law governs: retreat is a factor when it can be done safely, but it is never required in the face of a sudden, fierce and violent attack, and there is no duty to retreat in your own dwelling or its curtilage (MCL 768.21c).
In a Michigan self-defense case, who has to prove it, me or the prosecutor?
The prosecutor carries the final burden. Self-defense is an affirmative defense, so a defendant has to produce some evidence on each element before the judge must instruct on it. Once that is done, the prosecutor must disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt (People v Dupree, 486 Mich 693, 710 (2010); M Crim JI 7.20).
Can I still claim self-defense if I started the argument or threw the first punch?
Starting an argument with words does not by itself end the right to self-defense. A person who starts a fight with fists or a weapon that is not deadly does not lose all right to self-defense, but if the other person responds with deadly force, he or she may act in self-defense only if he or she retreated where it was safe to do so (M Crim JI 7.16). For nondeadly force, the jury is told the person must not have acted wrongfully and brought on the assault, and a person who started an assault with deadly force or a dangerous or deadly weapon loses the claim unless he or she genuinely stopped and clearly communicated a wish to make peace.
What protection do I have if I use force against someone breaking into my home, business or car?
Michigan gives a rebuttable presumption that your fear was honest and reasonable when you honestly and reasonably believed the person was breaking in or committing home invasion, had broken in and was still there, or was unlawfully trying to remove someone from a dwelling, business or occupied vehicle against his or her will, and that was in fact what the person was doing. The presumption has listed exceptions, and the prosecutor can overcome it by proving beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not have the belief.
Can I be arrested and charged even if I acted in self-defense?
Yes. Police can arrest on reasonable cause and a prosecutor can charge, and the Self-Defense Act does not stop either. MCL 780.961 says a person who uses force in compliance with the Act and who is not engaged in a crime commits no crime, but it also lets a prosecutor who believes the force was unjustified bring charges, and requires the prosecutor to present evidence of that at the warrant, any preliminary examination, and trial.
Related Michigan pages
- Grand Rapids Criminal Defense Lawyer
- Grand Rapids Assault Lawyer
- Murder and homicide charges
- Grand Rapids Weapons Charges Lawyer
- Criminal appeals
I defend people charged after they used force to protect themselves or someone else. Contact me 24/7 by phone or email. Your Rights, My Fight! Call for a free initial consultation.
Big-Firm Power. Street-Level Grit.
Law Offices of Mitchell S. Bisson, 2828 Kraft Ave SE, Suite 295, Grand Rapids, MI 49512, serving Kent County and West Michigan.
This page provides general information about Michigan law and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws change and every case turns on its own facts. Consult a licensed attorney about your specific situation.