Jury instructions; Accident defense; People v Aaron; Harmless error; Outcome determinative error; People v Lukity; Sentencing; Guidelines scoring; MCL 777.66; People v Lockridge; Proportionality; Departure sentence; People v Dixon-Bey; Life without parole (LWOP)

The court held that defendant was entitled to a new trial on his felony-murder conviction because the trial court erroneously instructed the jury that accident was not a defense to felony murder. It also held that he was entitled to resentencing on his FIP conviction. Defendant admitted shooting and killing his longtime friend but testified that the shooting was accidental and occurred while he was trying to place a gun into a backpack in the backseat. The jury convicted defendant of first-degree felony murder, FIP, and felony-firearm. The trial court sentenced him to mandatory LWOP for felony murder and 45 to 75 years for FIP. On appeal, the court held that the felony-murder instruction was contrary to Aaron, which provides that where “the death was purely accidental, application of the felony-murder doctrine is unjust and should be precluded.” The court noted that “[a]ccident is a viable defense to murder” and that the prosecutor conceded accident is a defense to first-degree felony murder. The error was outcome determinative because a properly instructed jury could have accepted defendant’s version that the killing was a “purely a split-second accident,” and the jury had been told “many times over” that accident was not a defense to felony murder. The court also held that resentencing was required on the FIP conviction because the trial court did not score the guidelines and did not explain why the major upward departure was more proportionate than a different sentence. Vacated and remanded.