Background
Michael Ryan Terry, Jr., fatally shot James Green, Jr., during an encounter at Nyesha Harper’s home. Harper had sexual relationships with both men, and her friendship with Terry had caused friction between her and Green. Less than 48 hours before the shooting, Green became angry upon seeing Harper with Terry and chased the vehicle in which they were traveling. Harper later warned Terry that Green wanted to fight him.
Green subsequently entered Harper’s home unannounced and found Terry shirtless on the floor and Harper wearing only a bra and underwear. Green approached Terry, who shot him once in the chest. Terry claimed self-defense. Although the jury received instructions on first- and second-degree murder, defense counsel did not request voluntary manslaughter. The jury reported being at a stalemate on the murder charge before convicting Terry of second-degree murder, felon-in-possession, and two counts of felony-firearm.
After a hearing on Terry’s ineffective-assistance claim, the trial court denied a new trial. It found that the evidence did not support a voluntary-manslaughter instruction and treated counsel’s decision to pursue self-defense without adding another lesser offense as reasonable trial strategy.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals held that trial counsel performed deficiently by failing to request a voluntary-manslaughter instruction. Because the jury was instructed on second-degree murder, the defense was not truly “all or nothing.” Manslaughter also was not inconsistent with self-defense, which would have been a complete defense to both murder and manslaughter.
The court further held that a rational view of the evidence supported voluntary manslaughter. The recent conflict between Terry and Green, Green’s unexpected entry, the intimate scene he encountered, his approach toward Terry, and the encounter’s brief duration permitted a jury to find adequate provocation, heat of passion, and no reasonable opportunity to cool down.
Counsel also failed to adequately investigate and advise Terry about his sentencing exposure. Terry’s voluntary-manslaughter guidelines would have been 50 to 125 months, while the upper end of his second-degree-murder guidelines was 39 years or life, and he received a 35-year minimum sentence. Given that disparity and the jury’s reported stalemate, the court found a reasonable probability of a different outcome. It reversed Terry’s second-degree-murder conviction and the corresponding felony-firearm conviction and remanded for further proceedings on those charges.
Key Takeaways
- Declining a lesser-offense instruction is not sound strategy merely because counsel labels the defense “all or nothing,” particularly when the jury receives another lesser-offense option.
- Only a modest evidentiary showing of provocation is needed to warrant a voluntary-manslaughter instruction, and the required passion may include emotional excitement that disturbs reason.
- Defense counsel must reasonably investigate and communicate materially different sentencing exposure when advising a defendant whether to request or waive a lesser-included-offense instruction.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that strategic deference does not protect a jury-instruction decision founded on legal error or an inadequate investigation. When the evidence permits mitigation from murder to voluntary manslaughter, counsel must meaningfully evaluate that option alongside the asserted complete defense.
The opinion also shows how sentencing advice can affect the validity of a defendant’s agreement to waive a lesser-offense instruction. A substantial misunderstanding of the available sentencing range may support ineffective-assistance relief when it influences that decision and undermines confidence in the verdict.