Jury instruction on the “Citizens’ Veto”; People v St Cyr; People v Patrick; People v Chamblis; Instructions on self-defense or defense of others; Threat of force; People v Ogilvie; Sentencing; Scoring of OV 19; MCL 777.49(a)

The court held that the trial court properly denied defendant-Shiffer’s request for argument or instruction on the Citizens’ Veto, and there was no error in not sua sponte instructing the jury on self-defense or defense of others. Further, it found that the OV 19 was properly scored at 25 points. Thus, the court affirmed Shiffer’s conviction of threatening or falsely reporting terrorism, and his sentence, as a fourth offense habitual offender, of 16 years and 8 months to 42 years. The case arose from a text message in which he reported that he had sent an unlit pipe bomb to a judge. On appeal, the court noted that the Citizens’ Veto refers to a “jury’s inherent power to return a verdict of not guilty based not on the evidence but rather the jurors’ own disapproval of the applicable law.” While Shiffer relied on Chamblis, the court found that case “stands for a legal proposition with which no one disagrees: Jurors have the power to nullify. Chamblis and the cases that followed indicate only that a jury may in practice exercise the Veto, not that it must, or even should, be formally reminded of that power.” The authority on which Shiffer relied “does not clearly characterize the Veto as a right of the defendant, but rather the prerogative of the jurors.” Although defendants are its potential beneficiaries, “the law does not recognize a defendant’s entitlement to instructions on it.” As to instructions on self-defense or defense of others, M Crim JI 7.22(3) to (6) describes the four requirements “and ‘use of force’ is among them. Here, there was a threat of force, which does not justify such an instruction.” The court concluded that the “evidence did not support a defense of others instruction, neither Shiffer nor his attorney actually requested” the instructions, and there was no indication that they “would have made a difference if they had been provided.” As to the OV 19 score, Shiffer’s conduct “did threaten the security of the Court until officers could officially confirm there was no actual bomb. That the concern or threat dissipated does not mean there was not an institutional threat to begin with.”