accurate jury instruction in Michigan

2022See People v Curtis, 52 Mich 616, 622-624 ; 18 NW 385 (1884) (the defendant in a homicide case “was entitled and bound to take an interest in the life and safety of his brother,” and his use of a deadly weapon to that end was not necessarily evidence of malice); People v Burkard, 374 Mich 430, 437-438 ; 132 NW2d 106 (1965), partially abrogated on other grounds by People v Heflin, 434 Mich 482 ; 456 NW2d 10 (1990) (the defendant was entitled to an accurate jury instruction related to his claim that his act of homicide was based on his belief that his wife’s life was in danger); People v Wright,

2022See People v Curtis, 52 Mich 616, 622-624 ; 18 NW 385 (1884) (the defendant in a homicide case “was entitled and bound to take an interest in the life and safety of his brother,” and his use of a deadly weapon to that end was not necessarily evidence of malice); People v Burkard, 374 Mich 430, 437-438 ; 132 NW2d 106 (1965), partially abrogated on other grounds by People v Heflin, 434 Mich 482 ; 456 NW2d 10 (1990) (the defendant was entitled to an accurate jury instruction related to his claim that his act of homicide was based on his belief that his wife’s life was in danger); People v Wright,

2022See People v Curtis, 52 Mich 616, 622-624 ; 18 NW 385 (1884) (the defendant in a homicide case “was entitled and bound to take an interest in the life and safety of his brother,” and his use of a deadly weapon to that end was not necessarily evidence of malice); People v Burkard, 374 Mich 430, 437-438 ; 132 NW2d 106 (1965), partially abrogated on other grounds by People v Heflin, 434 Mich 482 ; 456 NW2d 10 (1990) (the defendant was entitled to an accurate jury instruction related to his claim that his act of homicide was based on his belief that his wife’s life was in danger); People v Wright,

2022See People v Curtis, 52 Mich 616, 622-624 ; 18 NW 385 (1884) (the defendant in a homicide case “was entitled and bound to take an interest in the life and safety of his brother,” and his use of a deadly weapon to that end was not necessarily evidence of malice); People v Burkard, 374 Mich 430, 437-438 ; 132 NW2d 106 (1965), partially abrogated on other grounds by People v Heflin, 434 Mich 482 ; 456 NW2d 10 (1990) (the defendant was entitled to an accurate jury instruction related to his claim that his act of homicide was based on his belief that his wife’s life was in danger); People v Wright,

2022See People v Curtis, 52 Mich 616, 622-624 ; 18 NW 385 (1884) (the defendant in a homicide case “was entitled and bound to take an interest in the life and safety of his brother,” and his use of a deadly weapon to that end was not necessarily evidence of malice); People v Burkard, 374 Mich 430, 437-438 ; 132 NW2d 106 (1965), partially abrogated on other grounds by People v Heflin, 434 Mich 482 ; 456 NW2d 10 (1990) (the defendant was entitled to an accurate jury instruction related to his claim that his act of homicide was based on his belief that his wife’s life was in danger); People v Wright,

2022See People v Curtis, 52 Mich 616, 622-624 ; 18 NW 385 (1884) (the defendant in a homicide case “was entitled and bound to take an interest in the life and safety of his brother,” and his use of a deadly weapon to that end was not necessarily evidence of malice); People v Burkard, 374 Mich 430, 437-438 ; 132 NW2d 106 (1965), partially abrogated on other grounds by People v Heflin, 434 Mich 482 ; 456 NW2d 10 (1990) (the defendant was entitled to an accurate jury instruction related to his claim that his act of homicide was based on his belief that his wife’s life was in danger); People v Wright,

2022See People v Curtis, 52 Mich 616, 622-624 ; 18 NW 385 (1884) (the defendant in a homicide case “was entitled and bound to take an interest in the life and safety of his brother,” and his use of a deadly weapon to that end was not necessarily evidence of malice); People v Burkard, 374 Mich 430, 437-438 ; 132 NW2d 106 (1965), partially abrogated on other grounds by People v Heflin, 434 Mich 482 ; 456 NW2d 10 (1990) (the defendant was entitled to an accurate jury instruction related to his claim that his act of homicide was based on his belief that his wife’s life was in danger); People v Wright,

2022See People v Curtis, 52 Mich 616, 622-624 ; 18 NW 385 (1884) (the defendant in a homicide case “was entitled and bound to take an interest in the life and safety of his brother,” and his use of a deadly weapon to that end was not necessarily evidence of malice); People v Burkard, 374 Mich 430, 437-438 ; 132 NW2d 106 (1965), partially abrogated on other grounds by People v Heflin, 434 Mich 482 ; 456 NW2d 10 (1990) (the defendant was entitled to an accurate jury instruction related to his claim that his act of homicide was based on his belief that his wife’s life was in danger); People v Wright,

2022The SDA codified and -4- expanded “the circumstances in which a person may use deadly force in self-defense or in defense of another person without having the duty to retreat.” [People v] Dupree, 486 Mich [693,] [][] 708; 788 NW2d 399 [(2010)].

1982While a discussion of evidentiary sufficiency may be helpful, it would not be precedential. " 'Statements and comments in an opinion concerning some rule of law or legal proposition not necessarily involved nor essential to determination of the case in hand, are, however illuminating, but obiter dicta and lack the force of an adjudication.’ ” Hett v Duffy, 346 Mich 456 ; 78 NW2d 284 (1956).

1982While a discussion of evidentiary sufficiency may be helpful, it would not be precedential. " 'Statements and comments in an opinion concerning some rule of law or legal proposition not necessarily involved nor essential to determination of the case in hand, are, however illuminating, but obiter dicta and lack the force of an adjudication.’ ” Hett v Duffy, 346 Mich 456 ; 78 NW2d 284 (1956).