Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 780 / Act 311 of 2006
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 780.951 (2026)

Individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force; presumption; definitions.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

PRESUMPTION REGARDING SELF-DEFENSE


Act 311 of 2006


780.951 Individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force; presumption; definitions.

Sec. 1.

    (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), it is a rebuttable presumption in a civil or criminal case that an individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force under section 2 of the self-defense act has an honest and reasonable belief that imminent death of, sexual assault of, or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another individual will occur if both of the following apply:

    (a) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is in the process of breaking and entering a dwelling or business premises or committing home invasion or has broken and entered a dwelling or business premises or committed home invasion and is still present in the dwelling or business premises, or is unlawfully attempting to remove another individual from a dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle against his or her will.

    (b) The individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force honestly and reasonably believes that the individual is engaging in conduct described in subdivision (a).

    (2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if any of the following circumstances exist:

    (a) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used, including an owner, lessee, or titleholder, has the legal right to be in the dwelling, business premises, or vehicle and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order, a probation order, or a parole order of no contact against that person.

    (b) The individual removed or being removed from the dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle is a child or grandchild of, or is otherwise in the lawful custody of or under the lawful guardianship of, the individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used.

    (c) The individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force is engaged in the commission of a crime or is using the dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle to further the commission of a crime.

    (d) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is a peace officer who has entered or is attempting to enter a dwelling, business premises, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties in accordance with applicable law.

    (e) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is the spouse or former spouse of the individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force, an individual with whom the individual using deadly force or other than deadly force has or had a dating relationship, an individual with whom the individual using deadly force or other than deadly force has had a child in common, or a resident or former resident of his or her household, and the individual using deadly force or other than deadly force has a prior history of domestic violence as the aggressor.

    (3) As used in this section:

    (a) "Domestic violence" means that term as defined in section 1 of 1978 PA 389, MCL 400.1501.

    (b) "Business premises" means a building or other structure used for the transaction of business, including an appurtenant structure attached to that building or other structure.

    (c) "Dwelling" means a structure or shelter that is used permanently or temporarily as a place of abode, including an appurtenant structure attached to that structure or shelter.

    (d) "Law enforcement officer of a Michigan Indian tribal police force" means a regularly employed member of a police force of a Michigan Indian tribe who is appointed pursuant to former 25 CFR 12.100 to 12.103.

    (e) "Michigan Indian tribe" means a federally recognized Indian tribe that has trust lands located within this state.

    (f) "Peace officer" means any of the following:

    (i) A regularly employed member of a law enforcement agency authorized and established pursuant to law, including common law, who is responsible for the prevention and detection of crime and the enforcement of the general criminal laws of this state. Peace officer does not include a person serving solely because he or she occupies any other office or position.

    (ii) A law enforcement officer of a Michigan Indian tribal police force.

    (iii) The sergeant at arms or any assistant sergeant at arms of either house of the legislature who is commissioned as a police officer by that respective house of the legislature as provided by the legislative sergeant at arms police powers act, 2001 PA 185, MCL 4.381 to 4.382.

    (iv) A law enforcement officer of a multicounty metropolitan district.

    (v) A county prosecuting attorney's investigator sworn and fully empowered by the sheriff of that county.

    (vi) Until December 31, 2007, a law enforcement officer of a school district in this state that has a membership of at least 20,000 pupils and that includes in its territory a city with a population of at least 180,000 as of the most recent federal decennial census.

    (vii) A fire arson investigator from a fire department within a city with a population of not less than 750,000 who is sworn and fully empowered by the city chief of police.

    (viii) A security employee employed by the state pursuant to section 6c of 1935 PA 59, MCL 28.6c.

    (ix) A motor carrier officer appointed pursuant to section 6d of 1935 PA 59, MCL 28.6d.

    (x) A police officer or public safety officer of a community college, college, or university who is authorized by the governing board of that community college, college, or university to enforce state law and the rules and ordinances of that community college, college, or university.

    (g) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, that is designed to transport people or property.

History: 2006, Act 311, Eff. Oct. 1, 2006

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 2008–2026 · leading case: People v. Conyer, 762 N.W.2d 198 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Conyer, 762 N.W.2d 198 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “961, MCL 780.951, MCL 600.2922c, MCL 768.21c, and MCL 600.”
Jeremy Hoven v. Walgreen Co., 751 F.3d 778 (6th Cir. 2014). “rovides that: Except as provided in subsection (2), it is a rebuttable presumption in a civil or criminal case that an individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force under section 2 of the self-defense act has an honest and reasonable belief that imminent…”
People of Michigan v. Theodore Paul Wafer (Mich. 2018). · cites it 31× “Furthermore, MCL 780.951 provides heightened statutory protection for a person who uses deadly force in self-defense when the circumstances suggest that another person presents an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm to those within a dwelling.”
People of Michigan v. Tracy Lee Lawrence (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 7× “” However, defendant 5 Defendant also argues that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to request an instruction on this presumption in accordance with MCL 780.951. However, because defendant has not shown that the requirements of…”
People of Michigan v. Theodore Paul Wafer (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 5× “JURY INSTRUCTIONS Defendant first argues that the trial court erred when it denied his request for a jury instruction based on MCL 780.951(1), which would have afforded him the benefit of a rebuttable presumption that he had an honest and reasonable belief that imminent death or…”
People of Michigan v. Tofeek Saeed (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 5× “] With regard to establishing an honest and reasonable belief of imminent death or great bodily harm, MCL 780.951(1) outlines circumstances where a rebuttable presumption applies “that an individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force .”
People of Michigan v. Michael Anthony Thigpen (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 3× “A defendant in a motor vehicle (as opposed to a dwelling or business premises) can rely on the rebuttable presumption only when the “individual against whom deadly force .”
People of Michigan v. Paul Thomas Gabriel (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 3× “MCL 780.951(1). The presumption applies if the individual against whom the force was used was breaking and entering a dwelling or business premises or committing a home invasion, had broken and entered or committed a home invasion and was still present, or was unlawfully…”
People of Michigan v. Darien Ray Gilleylen (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 3× “16a was drafted to comply with MCL 780.951, which provides, in relevant part: (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), it is a rebuttable presumption in a civil or criminal case that an individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force under section 2 of the…”
Thigpen 575347 v. Braman (W.D. Mich. 2025). · cites it 3× “A defendant in a motor vehicle (as opposed to a dwelling or business premises) can rely on the rebuttable presumption only when the “individual against whom deadly force .”
People of Michigan v. Cornell Maine Head Jr (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “Defendant does not argue that any of the instructions given were incorrect; rather, he argues that the instructions erroneously failed to include an instruction on the rebuttable presumption found in MCL 780.951(1), and that his counsel was therefore ineffective in failing to…”
Head v. Carl (E.D. Mich. 2022). · cites it 2× “Mich. Comp. Laws § 780.951 (1) states: [I]t is a rebuttable presumption in a civil or criminal case that an individual who uses deadly force .”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 780.951(1) — 12 cases
People of Michigan v. Theodore Paul Wafer (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “JURY INSTRUCTIONS Defendant first argues that the trial court erred when it denied his request for a jury instruction based on MCL 780.951(1), which would have afforded him the benefit of a rebuttable presumption that he had an honest and reasonable belief that imminent death or…”
People of Michigan v. Tracy Lee Lawrence (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). “” However, defendant 5 Defendant also argues that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to request an instruction on this presumption in accordance with MCL 780.951. However, because defendant has not shown that the requirements of…”
People of Michigan v. Theodore Paul Wafer (Mich. 2018). “Furthermore, MCL 780.951 provides heightened statutory protection for a person who uses deadly force in self-defense when the circumstances suggest that another person presents an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm to those within a dwelling.”
People of Michigan v. Tofeek Saeed (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “] With regard to establishing an honest and reasonable belief of imminent death or great bodily harm, MCL 780.951(1) outlines circumstances where a rebuttable presumption applies “that an individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force .”
People of Michigan v. Cornell Maine Head Jr (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). “Defendant does not argue that any of the instructions given were incorrect; rather, he argues that the instructions erroneously failed to include an instruction on the rebuttable presumption found in MCL 780.951(1), and that his counsel was therefore ineffective in failing to…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 780.951(1)(a) — 6 cases
People of Michigan v. Theodore Paul Wafer (Mich. 2018). “Furthermore, MCL 780.951 provides heightened statutory protection for a person who uses deadly force in self-defense when the circumstances suggest that another person presents an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm to those within a dwelling.”
People of Michigan v. Michael Anthony Thigpen (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “A defendant in a motor vehicle (as opposed to a dwelling or business premises) can rely on the rebuttable presumption only when the “individual against whom deadly force .”
People of Michigan v. Paul Thomas Gabriel (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “MCL 780.951(1). The presumption applies if the individual against whom the force was used was breaking and entering a dwelling or business premises or committing a home invasion, had broken and entered or committed a home invasion and was still present, or was unlawfully…”
People of Michigan v. Tofeek Saeed (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “] With regard to establishing an honest and reasonable belief of imminent death or great bodily harm, MCL 780.951(1) outlines circumstances where a rebuttable presumption applies “that an individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force .”
Thigpen 575347 v. Braman (W.D. Mich. 2025). “A defendant in a motor vehicle (as opposed to a dwelling or business premises) can rely on the rebuttable presumption only when the “individual against whom deadly force .”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 780.951(1)(b) — 3 cases
People of Michigan v. Theodore Paul Wafer (Mich. 2018). “Furthermore, MCL 780.951 provides heightened statutory protection for a person who uses deadly force in self-defense when the circumstances suggest that another person presents an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm to those within a dwelling.”
People of Michigan v. Theodore Paul Wafer (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “JURY INSTRUCTIONS Defendant first argues that the trial court erred when it denied his request for a jury instruction based on MCL 780.951(1), which would have afforded him the benefit of a rebuttable presumption that he had an honest and reasonable belief that imminent death or…”
People of Michigan v. Tofeek Saeed (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “] With regard to establishing an honest and reasonable belief of imminent death or great bodily harm, MCL 780.951(1) outlines circumstances where a rebuttable presumption applies “that an individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force .”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 780.951(2) — 1 case
People of Michigan v. Paul Thomas Gabriel (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “MCL 780.951(1). The presumption applies if the individual against whom the force was used was breaking and entering a dwelling or business premises or committing a home invasion, had broken and entered or committed a home invasion and was still present, or was unlawfully…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 780.951(3)(c) — 1 case
People of Michigan v. Tracy Lee Lawrence (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). “” However, defendant 5 Defendant also argues that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to request an instruction on this presumption in accordance with MCL 780.951. However, because defendant has not shown that the requirements of…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.