Background
Sadarie Deshawn Donalson attended a gathering at Cornelius Jones’s apartment in Pontiac, Michigan. After Donalson was asked to leave for spitting in Jones’s sink, his friend Dewuan Benion returned to the apartment and fought with Jones. Donalson also reentered and claimed that Jones was choking Benion and that several other people joined the fight, although witnesses gave conflicting accounts. Neither Jones nor Benion had a weapon.
Donalson fired two shots, striking Jones in the face and lower abdomen. Jones died, and Donalson fled before officers apprehended him following a pursuit through nearby yards. A jury convicted Donalson of second-degree murder, felony-firearm, carrying a concealed weapon, and resisting or obstructing a police officer. The trial court imposed prison terms of 30 to 60 years for murder, two years for felony-firearm, and one year each for the remaining offenses.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that sufficient evidence allowed the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Donalson did not act in lawful self-defense or defense of others. Testimony indicated that the fight was not serious, neither participant was armed, Donalson was being pushed from the apartment when he fired, and the fight may already have ended. The jury was entitled to reject Donalson’s account and find that no imminent threat of death or great bodily harm made deadly force necessary.
The court also reasoned that Donalson, after being told to leave, lacked a legal right to remain in the apartment and therefore could not satisfy the statutory requirements for using deadly force without a duty to retreat. It further upheld the scoring of 25 points for offense variable 3 under binding Michigan Supreme Court precedent and 15 points for offense variable 5 based on evidence of serious psychological injury to Jones’s family that might require professional treatment. Donalson expressly agreed to the OV 5 score at sentencing, waiving direct review, and counsel was not ineffective for declining to make a meritless objection. The court declined to consider the OV 6 challenge because Donalson omitted it from his statement of questions presented.
Key Takeaways
- Conflicting testimony about a claimed imminent threat presented a credibility question for the jury, whose verdict receives deference on sufficiency review.
- A person who returns after being directed to leave may fail the statutory requirement that deadly force without retreat be used in a place where the person has a legal right to be.
- Victim-impact statements and the presentence report supported scoring OV 5 for serious psychological injury even though the record did not establish that family members had already obtained professional treatment.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the evidence Michigan courts may consider when determining whether the prosecution disproved self-defense or defense of others, including whether the danger was imminent, whether deadly force was necessary, and whether the defendant had a legal right to remain at the location.
It also underscores that an express agreement with a sentencing-guidelines score can waive appellate review and that psychological treatment need not already have been sought for OV 5 to apply when the record supports a sufficiently serious injury that may require treatment.