Background
Sadarie Deshawn Donalson attended a gathering at Cornelius Jones’s apartment in Pontiac, Michigan. After Jones asked Donalson to leave for spitting in the sink, Donalson initially departed with his friend Dewuan Benion. Benion returned and fought with Jones, and Donalson reentered the apartment. Donalson claimed that Jones was choking Benion and that other people joined the fight, but witnesses gave conflicting accounts. Neither Jones nor Benion was armed.
Donalson fired two shots, striking Jones in the face and lower abdomen and killing him. Donalson and Benion fled, and Donalson later ran from police before being apprehended. 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, one year for carrying a concealed weapon, and one year for resisting or obstructing.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held 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. The jury could credit testimony that the fight was not serious, that no weapons were present, and that others were separating Jones and Benion. The evidence also indicated that Donalson had opportunities to leave, was being pushed toward the exit when he fired, and did not tell police that he had feared for his or Benion’s life. Moreover, because Donalson returned after being told to leave, the court concluded that he was no longer in a place where he had a legal right to be for purposes of Michigan’s statutory no-duty-to-retreat provision.
The court also upheld the sentencing scores. Binding Michigan Supreme Court precedent required 25 points under Offense Variable 3 because Jones died from the injuries. Donalson waived a direct challenge to the 15-point score under OV 5 by agreeing at sentencing that it was correct, but the court considered the issue through his ineffective-assistance claim and found sufficient evidence of serious psychological injury to Jones’s family that might require professional treatment. Counsel was not ineffective for declining to make a meritless objection. The court declined to consider Donalson’s OV 6 argument because he omitted it from his statement of questions presented.
Key Takeaways
- Conflicting testimony about the severity of a fight and the necessity of deadly force presented credibility questions for the jury, not grounds for overturning the verdict.
- A person who reenters premises after being told to leave may fail the lawful-presence requirement of Michigan’s statutory no-duty-to-retreat protection.
- Victim-impact statements and the presentence report supported the trial court’s finding that the victim’s family suffered serious psychological injury for purposes of OV 5, even though professional treatment had not been sought.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the deferential review applied to a jury’s rejection of self-defense when witnesses offer competing accounts of a confrontation. It also underscores that Michigan’s no-duty-to-retreat statute requires the person using deadly force to be somewhere that person has a legal right to be.
On sentencing, the opinion shows that expressly agreeing with a guidelines score can waive direct appellate review, while a related ineffective-assistance claim may still permit examination of whether the score was legally supportable.