People v. Conyer

38 Citing cases

  1. Hinds v. Huss

    2:19-CV-13497 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 6, 2023)

    Guajardo, 300 Mich.App. at 35. See also People v. Conyer, 281 Mich.App. 526, 530 & n 2; 762 N.W.2d 198 (2008). MCL 780.973 provides that “[e]xcept as provided [MCL 780.972], this act does not modify the common law of this state in existence on October 1, 2006 regarding the duty to retreat before using deadly force or force other than deadly force” (emphasis added).

  2. People v. Patterson

    No. 360938 (Mich. Ct. App. Mar. 16, 2023)

    "Whether a statute applies retroactively presents a question of statutory construction that this Court reviews de novo." People v Conyer, 281 Mich.App. 526, 528-529; 762 N.W.2d 198 (2008). The intent of the Legislature governs the determination whether a statute is applied prospectively or retroactively.

  3. People v. Hassel

    No. 350654 (Mich. Ct. App. Oct. 27, 2022)

    People v Dupree, 486 Mich. 693, 707; 788 N.W.2d 399 (2010). The use of deadly force is authorized if an individual honestly and reasonably believes that it is necessary to prevent the imminent death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault of himself or another. MCL 780.972(1); People v Conyer, 281 Mich.App. 526, 529-530; 762 N.W.2d 198 (2008). A jury's conclusion that a defendant killed with premeditation "necessarily entails a rejection" of self-defense.

  4. People v. Kupinski

    No. 328572 (Mich. Ct. App. Jun. 28, 2018)

    The SDA "altered the common law of self-defense concerning the duty to retreat." People v Conyer, 281 Mich App 526, 530; 762 NW2d 198 (2008). The SDA "created a new substantive right, i.e., the right to stand one's ground and not retreat before using deadly force in certain circumstances in which a duty to retreat would have existed at common law."

  5. People v. Hinds

    No. 326923 (Mich. Ct. App. Jun. 14, 2016)   Cited 1 times

    Guajardo, 300 Mich App at 35. See also People v Conyer, 281 Mich App 526, 530 & n 2; 762 NW2d 198 (2008). MCL 780.973 provides that "[e]xcept as provided [MCL 780.972], this act does not modify the common law of this state in existence on October 1, 2006 regarding the duty to retreat before using deadly force or force other than deadly force" (emphasis added).

  6. People v. Spencer

    No. 311954 (Mich. Ct. App. Jan. 14, 2014)

    The statutory mandates on which defendant relies were enacted in 2012, after defendant's interrogation and trial, and, because the provisions were plainly intended to apply prospectively, they have no application to defendant's case. Generally, statutes are presumed to operate prospectively, People v Conyer, 281 Mich App 526, 529; 762 NW2d 198 (2008), and in this case, the terms of 2012 PA 479 are plainly prospective, as evidenced by the prospective time frames for law enforcement compliance as provided in MCL 763.11(1), (3) and (4).

  7. People v. Ogilvie

    No. 298302 (Mich. Ct. App. May. 23, 2013)

    The common law did not extend the "castle" doctrine to the curtilage surrounding the dwelling. Id. at 137-138; see also People v Conyer, 281 Mich App 526, 530; 762 NW2d 198 (2008). But the Self-Defense Act (SDA), MCL 780.971 et seq., altered the common law regarding the duty to retreat, effective October 1, 2006.

  8. People v. Washington

    No. 299875 (Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2012)

    The Self-Defense Act (SDA), MCL 780.971 et seq., changed the law of self defense with respect to the common-law duty to retreat for offenses committed after October 1, 2006. People v Conyer, 281 Mich App 526, 530 n 2; 762 NW2d 198 (2008); People v Dupree, 486 Mich 693, 708; 788 NW2d 399 (2010). Under the common law, an individual had a duty to retreat "unless attacked inside one's home, or subjected to a sudden, fierce, and violent attack . . . ."

  9. People v. Campbell

    289 Mich. App. 533 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 34 times
    Reaching the same conclusion

    Generally, statutes are presumed to operate prospectively unless the Legislature either expressly or impliedly indicated an intention to give the statute retro-active effect. People v Conyer, 281 Mich App 526, 529; 762 NW2d 198 (2008). There is a recognized exception to this general rule for remedial or procedural statutes.

  10. People v. Dupree

    486 Mich. 693 (Mich. 2010)   Cited 457 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a trial court improperly refused a requested instruction when the defendant "satisfie[d] the initial burden of producing some evidence" supporting the instruction

    See MCL 780.972.People v Conyer, 281 Mich App 526, 531; 762 NW2d 198 (2008). See MCL 780.973 ("[T]his act does not modify the common law of this state in existence on October 1, 2006 regarding the duty to retreat before using deadly force or force other than deadly force.").