Request for the jury to view the crime scene; Manslaughter instruction; Rebuttable presumption for the instruction; M Crim JI 7.16a; MCL 780.951; Motions for a directed verdict, JNOV, or new trial; Self-defense; Great weight of the evidence

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying “defendant’s motion for a jury view of the crime scene.” It also concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion by giving the jury an instruction on manslaughter. Additionally, “MCL 780.951 did not apply and M Crim JI 7.16a was not supported by the evidence.” Further, the trial court properly declined to grant his motions for a directed verdict or a new trial. Finally, the manslaughter verdict was not against the great weight of the evidence. The case arose out of the shooting death of victim-L. Defendant and L had two children together. He was convicted of manslaughter and felony-firearm. Defendant argued, among other things, that the trial court erred by denying his request for the jury to view the crime scene. Although he argued “that it was necessary for the jury to view the crime scene to feel how small the areas in the house felt in person, there was ample evidence of the size and dimensions of the crime scene through photos, diagrams, videos, and descriptions.” Further, although defendant argued “that the trial court’s decision prevented him from being able to adequately present his defense of self-defense, a jury view would not have aided the jury in making that determination. Defendant showed videos of how fast a person could walk or run to get a gun from the computer room to retrieve a gun and return to the kitchen, and how fast a person could retrieve a knife from the kitchen. The evidence presented showed that defendant left the kitchen for between a few seconds and a minute and a half before he returned to shoot” L. Defendant “did not explain how an in-person view of the scene would have given additional information to the jury, apart from the ‘feeling’ of closeness. Further, it was undisputed that the kitchen had knives within easy reach. However, the two eyewitnesses, defendant’s children, both testified that [L] dropped the knife that she had and never reached for another.” Further, the court noted that “defendant’s son testified that he thought that the fight was over when defendant was in the computer room, and he, his sister, and [L] were getting ready to leave the house when defendant came back with the gun to shoot” L. In other words, defendant did not show “that his theory of self-defense failed because the jury lacked an understanding that the rooms were small and close together.” Rather, a reasonable inference from the evidence was “that the jury concluded that defendant did not honestly believe that [L] continued to pose a threat to his life after she dropped the knife, and that he was able to leave the kitchen, [L] did not follow him, there was no further yelling or fighting, and the witnesses believed that the fight was over.” Affirmed.