## Facts

- A fatal shooting occurred on August 15, 1883, at a public celebration in Calvin Township, Cass County, Michigan.
- A fight began when Levi Wilson and Ami Curtis (defendant’s brother) got into an altercation; testimony indicated Levi had a knife and threw stones at Ami.
- As the men chased each other around a wagon, Macom Wilson approached, threw a stone at Ami, and was allegedly threatening further with another stone.
- Macom Wilson was shot and killed during the affray.
- Curtis admitted firing a revolver, but claimed his revolver was smaller than the .32-caliber bullet that killed Wilson.
- Several witnesses testified that another shot was fired at about the same time by someone other than Curtis.
- The prosecution argued Curtis fired the fatal shot; the defense argued causation was not proved and the shooting occurred while intervening to protect Ami from a dangerous attack.

## Issues

1. Whether it was error to admit only the incriminating portion of Curtis’s prior statement rather than the statement as a whole.
2. Whether the trial court improperly limited evidence concerning the surrounding disturbances and the identities of other possible shooters.
3. Whether the prosecution was required to prove that the fatal bullet came from Curtis’s pistol and whether the court improperly restricted proof on that point.
4. Whether the jury was incorrectly instructed that defense of another required the person defended to be “entirely blameless.”
5. Whether the jury was incorrectly instructed that use of a deadly weapon tends, as a matter of law, to show malice, and that provocative words could bar resistance to an ensuing assault.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court reversed Curtis’s second-degree murder conviction and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held it was error to admit only the more damaging fragment of a defendant’s statement when the omitted portions could materially change its meaning.
- The court held the jury should have been allowed to hear evidence of the immediate circumstances of the affray, including evidence bearing on whether someone else fired the fatal shot.
- The court held the prosecution must be permitted to make a full showing that the fatal bullet came from the defendant’s weapon, and the factfinder must be allowed to consider competing accounts about other shooters.
- The court held the defense-of-others instruction was legally incorrect to the extent it required the person defended to be “entirely blameless.”
- The court held it was error to treat use of a deadly weapon as establishing malice as a matter of law and to suggest that words could forfeit the right to resist an assault.

## Legal Principles

- When the prosecution offers a defendant’s statement, the statement must be admitted in its entirety or excluded when partial admission would distort meaning and unfairly increase its inculpatory effect.
- Evidence of the disturbances and immediate surroundings of a homicidal affray is generally admissible, including evidence identifying other participants and other possible shooters.
- In a shooting homicide, the prosecution bears the burden to prove the fatal bullet came from the defendant’s weapon; trial rulings should not block a full evidentiary presentation on that point.
- A person not in the wrong may use necessary force, including deadly force when warranted, to prevent a dangerous felony against another; the right to defend another is not limited to situations where the person defended is wholly without fault.
- Use of a deadly weapon does not establish malice as a matter of law; malice must be determined from all the circumstances.
- Provocative words do not justify an assault, but they do not, by themselves, eliminate the right to resist an assault once it occurs.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new trial because the jury was deprived of critical context and was instructed under incorrect legal standards on defense of others and malice, while evidentiary rulings and partial admission of the defendant’s statement risked misleading the jury on causation and justification.


People v. Curtis, 18 N.W. 385 (Mich. 1884)