Background
In March 2022, Justin House’s father’s vehicle was stolen. On March 12, 2022, House was driving with his girlfriend and young child when he spotted the stolen Honda Crosstour. He pulled in front of the vehicle at an intersection, blocking it in. The Honda reversed into the car behind it, and four teenage males — some armed with handguns — fled on foot. House, who was legally carrying a firearm, exited his vehicle and followed the fleeing teenagers. He ultimately shot and killed a 13-year-old among the group. House told police he fired after hearing one of the teenagers say “shoot him, he’s following us” and seeing one of them gesture as if reaching for a weapon. The victim was shot in the back.
A Kent County jury convicted House of second-degree murder and felony-firearm. The trial court sentenced him to 14 to 40 years for the murder conviction, consecutive to the mandatory two-year sentence for the felony-firearm charge. Before trial, the defense had sought to admit the victim’s social media posts, alleged gang affiliation, and photos of the victim with firearms to support a self-defense theory, but the trial court excluded that evidence. The prosecution admitted two autopsy photographs over defense objection.
House moved for a new trial or evidentiary hearing, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel based on trial counsel’s failure to call four available character witnesses who would have testified to his peaceful nature. The trial court made minor adjustments to offense variable scoring but denied the motions. House appealed, raising ineffective assistance of counsel, evidentiary errors, and sentencing errors.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed on all grounds. On ineffective assistance, the court held that trial counsel’s decision not to call character witnesses was a matter of reasonable trial strategy and, in any event, was not outcome-determinative. The jury had already heard substantial evidence supporting the self-defense theory — including testimony that the teenagers had guns and that House heard a threat — as well as the prosecution’s countervailing evidence that the victim was shot in the back while fleeing. The proposed character testimony would not have materially altered that balance.
The court upheld exclusion of the victim’s social media and gang-affiliation evidence. Although evidence of a victim’s violent character is admissible in a self-defense homicide case even if unknown to the defendant, the trial court acted within its discretion in finding the evidence irrelevant and unduly prejudicial under MRE 401 and 403, and any error was harmless given the other evidence presented. The court also upheld admission of the two autopsy photographs, finding they were probative — not merely inflammatory — because House’s defense was self-defense, not alibi, and the photographs corroborated testimony that the victim was shot in the back, directly refuting the self-defense claim.
On sentencing, the court found no error in the 25-point assessment for Offense Variable 6, consistent with the jury’s second-degree murder verdict and the trial court’s finding that House unjustifiably chased the teenagers. The 14-to-40-year sentence — just six months above the guidelines minimum of 162 months and in the bottom 5.5% of the authorized guidelines range — was held proportionate and not an abuse of discretion.
Key Takeaways
- A defense counsel’s strategic choice to forgo character witnesses survives an ineffective-assistance challenge when the proposed testimony would not have been outcome-determinative given the totality of evidence at trial.
- In Michigan self-defense homicide cases, a victim’s social media posts showing violent poses or gang affiliation are general reputational evidence and not per se inadmissible, but trial courts retain discretion to exclude them under MRE 403 when their probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of prejudice or juror confusion.
- Autopsy photographs are properly admitted when they serve a genuine evidentiary purpose — such as showing the location of a wound to rebut a self-defense claim — rather than merely inflaming the jury.
- A within-guidelines sentence carries a presumption of proportionality that a defendant bears the burden of rebutting; sentencing near the bottom of a broad guidelines range does not, without more, demonstrate disproportionality.
Why It Matters
This case illustrates the limits of a self-defense theory when physical evidence — here, a back-entry gunshot wound — contradicts the defendant’s account and when the defendant, rather than retreating, pursued the alleged aggressors. The opinion reinforces that legally armed citizens who give chase and kill a fleeing person face significant obstacles in claiming self-defense, regardless of the victim’s prior conduct or the initial provocation of a theft.
For practitioners, the decision underscores the high bar for ineffective-assistance claims premised on omitted character evidence, and confirms that Michigan courts will assess the admissibility of victim social media evidence through the lens of both relevance and unfair prejudice — meaning its admission is not automatic even in self-defense homicide cases where it is theoretically permissible.