Background
Sadarie Deshawn Donalson attended a gathering at Cornelius Jones’s apartment. After Jones asked Donalson to leave, Donalson’s friend Dewuan Benion returned and fought with Jones. Donalson reentered the apartment and later testified that Jones was choking Benion and that he feared for their lives. Witnesses offered conflicting accounts of the fight, and neither Jones nor Benion had a weapon. Donalson fired twice, striking Jones in the face and abdomen and killing him.
After fleeing and later running from police, Donalson was arrested. A jury convicted him of second-degree murder, felony-firearm, carrying a concealed weapon, and resisting or obstructing a police officer. The trial court sentenced him to 30 to 60 years for second-degree 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 and sentences. Viewing the evidence in the prosecution’s favor, it held that a rational jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Donalson did not act in lawful self-defense or defense of others. The evidence permitted findings that the fight was not serious or had ended, neither participant was armed, Donalson could have left, and deadly force was unnecessary. The court also concluded that Donalson, having returned after being told to leave, was not in a place where he had a legal right to be for purposes of Michigan’s no-duty-to-retreat statute.
The court upheld the assessment of 25 points under Offense Variable 3 because binding Michigan Supreme Court precedent permits that score when a life-threatening or permanently incapacitating injury causes death. It also held that Donalson waived his direct challenge to the 15-point OV 5 score by agreeing at sentencing that it was correct.
Addressing OV 5 through Donalson’s ineffective-assistance claim, the court held that the victim-impact statements and presentence report supported a finding of serious psychological injury to Jones’s family that may require professional treatment. Because an objection would have lacked merit, counsel was not ineffective for declining to make one. The court did not consider Donalson’s OV 6 argument because he omitted it from his statement of questions presented.
Key Takeaways
- Conflicting testimony about a claimed need for deadly force presents a credibility question for the jury, whose verdict receives deference on sufficiency review.
- A defendant who returns after being directed to leave is not necessarily in a place where he has a legal right to be under Michigan’s no-duty-to-retreat provision.
- Victim-impact statements and a presentence report may support OV 5 even when family members have not obtained professional treatment, but the record must establish serious psychological injury beyond ordinary grief.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the evidence Michigan courts consider when reviewing whether the prosecution disproved self-defense or defense of others, including the seriousness of the threat, the availability of retreat, and whether the defendant was lawfully present.
It also emphasizes that expressly accepting an offense-variable score can waive direct appellate review, while an ineffective-assistance claim still requires the defendant to show that an objection would have had merit.