Self-Defense Under Michigan Law in Domestic Violence Cases

Self-defense is a complete defense to a domestic assault charge in Michigan. If a person acts in lawful self-defense, the actions are justified and the person is not guilty.^[1] The defendant does not have to prove it: the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.^[3]

If you are in danger now, call 911. The National Domestic Violence Hotline is free, confidential and available 24/7 at 1-800-799-SAFE (7233), or by texting START to 88788.^[7]

This page explains the rules jurors are given, the Self-Defense Act, the duty to retreat, what happens when both people used force, and the evidence that bears on a self-defense claim. The focus is non-deadly force such as pushing, grabbing or striking.

The four rules for non-deadly force

Michigan's model jury instruction on non-deadly force, M Crim JI 7.22, gives jurors four rules.^[2][4][5][6]

1. An honest and reasonable belief. When the defendant acted, he or she must have honestly and reasonably believed that force was needed for protection from the imminent unlawful use of force by another. If the belief was honest and reasonable, the defendant could act at once, even if it turns out later that he or she was wrong about how much danger there was.^[2]
2. Proportionate force. A person is only justified in using the degree of force that seems necessary at the time. The force must have been the kind that was appropriate to the attack made and the circumstances as the defendant saw them.^[4]
3. Only as long as needed. The right to defend oneself only lasts as long as it seems necessary for the purpose of protection.^[5]
4. Not the one who brought it on. The person claiming self-defense must not have acted wrongfully and brought on the assault.^[6]

Jurors are told to judge the defendant's conduct according to how the circumstances appeared to the defendant at the time. In deciding whether the force seemed necessary, they consider whether the defendant knew of other ways to protect himself or herself, but they may also consider how the excitement of the moment affected the choice.^[8]

Who has to prove what

People often assume the accused has to prove self-defense. That is not the rule. To get the jury instructed on self-defense, the defendant needs only to produce some evidence on the elements of the defense, and the Court of Appeals has described that burden as not a heavy one.^[9] Whether the claim is believable is for the jury to decide under proper instructions.^[9]

Once there is some evidence of self-defense, the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.^[3] If there is no evidence of self-defense at all, no self-defense instructions are given.^[10]

The evidence can come from any witness, a recording or the physical evidence. When it comes from the defendant's own testimony, that means giving up the right not to testify.^[11] See What happens at a domestic violence trial.

The Self-Defense Act

Michigan's Self-Defense Act took effect on October 1, 2006.^[12][13] Its non-deadly force section says that an individual who is not engaged in the commission of a crime may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be, with no duty to retreat, if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force.^[14]

A companion statute says that a person who uses force in compliance with the Act, and who is not committing a crime at the time, commits no crime in using that force. If a prosecutor believes the force was unjustified and charges the person, the prosecutor must present evidence that the actions were not justified at the time of warrant issuance, at any preliminary examination and at trial.^[15]

The Act did not replace the older common law of self-defense. Apart from its no-retreat section, it does not modify the common law on the duty to retreat as it existed on October 1, 2006, and it does not diminish the common-law right to use force in self-defense or defense of another.^[13]

Deadly force is judged by a stricter standard

Question	Non-deadly force	Deadly force
What the person had to fear	The imminent unlawful use of force by another[2]	Death, serious physical injury or sexual assault; a threat of only minor injury is not enough[16]
Statute	MCL 780.972(2)[14]	MCL 780.972(1)[12]
Model jury instruction	M Crim JI 7.22[1]	M Crim JI 7.15[16]

Which standard applies depends on the force actually used. The Court of Appeals held in People v Ogilvie that pointing a loaded gun without shooting is a threat to use deadly force, not the use of deadly force, so the non-deadly force instruction applied.^[17]

Is there a duty to retreat?

The common statement that "Michigan is a stand-your-ground state, so you never have to retreat" leaves out the conditions. The statutory no-retreat rule applies to a person who is not committing a crime, is somewhere he or she has a legal right to be, and has the honest and reasonable belief the statute describes.^[14]

Where the Act does not apply, the common law does.^[18] In People v Allen, a 2025 case about a shooting, the Court of Appeals said that at common law a person has a duty to retreat, if possible, as far as safely possible, unless attacked inside his or her own home or subjected to a sudden, fierce and violent attack.^[19][20] Jurors hear this as something to weigh: if the defendant could have safely retreated but did not, they may consider that fact in deciding whether the defendant honestly and reasonably believed the force was needed.^[21] A separate statute confirms that there is no duty to retreat before using deadly force for a person in his or her own dwelling or within its curtilage.^[18]

MCL 768.21c speaks only to the duty to retreat.^[18] Whether the force itself was justified still turns on the four rules above.

When both people used force

Three rules address who started it.

• A person who acted wrongfully and brought on the assault cannot claim self-defense. If the defendant only used words, that does not prevent a self-defense claim if he or she was then attacked.^[6]
• A person who started a confrontation with fists or a non-deadly weapon, or with insults, does not lose all right to self-defense. If the other person responds with deadly force, the first person may act in self-defense, but only if he or she retreated where it would have been safe to do so.^[22]
• A person who started an assault with deadly force or a dangerous weapon cannot claim self-defense unless he or she genuinely stopped and clearly let the other person know that he or she wanted to make peace.^[23]

In the same case the Court of Appeals said that a willing participant in an altercation must take advantage of any ability to retreat but is not foreclosed from asserting self-defense.^[24][20] More on this in Mutual fighting and consent.

The "castle" presumption and its domestic exclusions

Michigan has a rebuttable presumption that a person who uses force against someone breaking into a dwelling, or unlawfully trying to remove a person from it, honestly and reasonably believed that death, sexual assault or great bodily harm was imminent.^[25] By statute it does not apply if the other person has the legal right to be in the dwelling and there is no domestic violence injunction or no-contact pretrial, probation or parole order against that person. It also does not apply if the other person is a spouse, former spouse, dating partner, co-parent or household member and the person using force has a prior history of domestic violence as the aggressor.^[25] Those exclusions are written as limits on the presumption, not on the defense, and the Self-Defense Act does not diminish the common-law right to use force in self-defense.^[25][13] Force against a former partner who breaks in is discussed in Defending someone else or your property.

Evidence that bears on a self-defense claim

What the defendant knew about the other person

Jurors may consider evidence that the complaining witness committed violent acts in the past that the defendant knew about, when deciding whether the defendant honestly and reasonably feared for his or her safety.^[26] This is narrower than showing that someone has a violent character. The Michigan rule that lets a defendant offer evidence of an alleged victim's trait for aggression applies "in a homicide case, when self-defense is an issue."^[27] Other acts of any person, including a witness, may still be offered for a proper non-character purpose under MRE 404(b).^[28]

The defendant's own account of a threat

In People v Nelson (2025), the Michigan Supreme Court reversed a conviction where the trial court had wrongly sustained a hearsay objection to the defendant's testimony that her then-boyfriend threatened to kill her. The Court noted that the threat was central to her self-defense theory.^[29]

Expert testimony

Expert testimony on what courts formerly called battered spouse syndrome, now described as intimate partner violence, may be admitted to support a defendant's self-defense claim. The expert may describe the syndrome and its symptoms generally, but not whether the individual defendant suffers from it or acted because of it.^[30][31] See Expert witnesses in domestic violence cases.

The statute on a defendant's other acts of domestic violence defines domestic violence as acts that are "not an act of self-defense."^[32] See Prior acts of domestic violence under MCL 768.27b.

Self-defense at the scene

By statute, each police agency's written domestic violence policy must emphasize that an officer should not arrest an individual if the officer has reasonable cause to believe the individual was acting in lawful self-defense or in lawful defense of another individual.^[33] When officers have probable cause to believe two people committed crimes against each other, the policy directs them to consider the degree of injury, the extent to which each person has been put in fear, and any history of domestic violence that can reasonably be ascertained.^[33] How officers sort this out is covered in Dual arrest and "who started it".

What a person says to officers at the scene can later be used as evidence. Before giving an account of a physical confrontation, read Should you talk to police?

What people get wrong

• "I have to prove I was defending myself." The prosecutor must disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.^[3]
• "The other person hit first, so anything I did afterward is covered." The force must be appropriate to the attack, and the right ends when the need for protection ends.^[4][5]
• "We were arguing, so I can't claim self-defense." Using only words does not prevent a self-defense claim by a person who is then attacked.^[6]
• "It was my house." Being at home removes a duty to retreat; it does not by itself justify force against a person who also has a right to be there.^[18][25]