Background
Sadarie Deshawn Donalson attended a gathering at Cornelius Jones’s apartment. After Jones asked Donalson to leave, Donalson initially departed with his friend, Dewuan Benion, but both returned and Benion fought with Jones. Donalson claimed that Jones was choking Benion and that other men joined the fight, while other witnesses described a less serious altercation and disputed whether anyone else participated. Neither Jones nor Benion was armed.
Donalson fired twice, striking Jones in the face and abdomen and killing him. 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 sentences including 30 to 60 years for second-degree murder and two years for felony-firearm.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences. Viewing the evidence in the prosecution’s favor, the court held that a rational jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Donalson did not lawfully act in self-defense or defense of others. The evidence permitted findings that the fight was not serious, neither participant had a weapon, Donalson could have left, and deadly force was unnecessary because neither Donalson nor Benion faced an imminent risk of death or great bodily harm.
The court also concluded that Donalson did not satisfy the statutory requirements for using deadly force without retreat because, after being told to leave, he returned to the apartment and was no longer somewhere he had a legal right to be. The court deferred to the jury’s resolution of the conflicting testimony and its credibility determinations.
On sentencing, the court upheld the 25-point score for offense variable 3 under controlling Michigan Supreme Court precedent. It also held that the record supported 15 points for offense variable 5 based on the serious psychological injury to Jones’s family. Donalson waived a direct OV 5 challenge by agreeing to the score at sentencing, and counsel was not ineffective for declining to make a meritless objection. The court declined to consider the OV 6 argument because Donalson omitted it from his statement of questions presented.
Key Takeaways
- Conflicting testimony about an asserted need for deadly force is resolved by the jury, and an appellate court reviewing sufficiency must draw reasonable inferences in support of the verdict.
- A defendant invoking Michigan’s statutory no-duty-to-retreat protection must be somewhere the defendant has a legal right to be; returning after being told to leave defeated that requirement here.
- Victim-impact statements and the presentence report supported the finding that the victim’s family suffered serious psychological injury that may require professional treatment, even without proof that treatment had already been sought.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the evidentiary burden the prosecution must meet after a defendant introduces evidence of self-defense or defense of others, while emphasizing the substantial deference appellate courts give to a jury’s credibility determinations. It also shows that Michigan’s statutory protection for using deadly force without retreat depends partly on whether the defendant had a legal right to remain at the location.
For sentencing appeals, the opinion underscores that expressly agreeing to an offense-variable score can waive a direct challenge and that victim-impact evidence may support OV 5 when it demonstrates psychological harm beyond ordinary grief.