PEOPLE OF MI V RICHARD ALONZO WALLACE JR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 178917
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 93-031871
RICHARD ALONZO WALLACE, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Wahls, P.J., and Young and H.A. Beach,* JJ.
YOUNG, J. (DISSENTING).
I respectfully dissent. The trial court’s failure to give a sua sponte modified self-defense
instruction related to fear of criminal sexual conduct does not, under the facts of this case, constitute
manifest injustice. Hence, I would affirm.
Unlike the majority, I find this case indistinguishable from People v Landrum, 434 Mich 482;
456 NW2d 10 (1990), the companion case to People v Heflin, 434 Mich 482; 456 NW2d 10
(1990). Landrum’s defense counsel did not object when the trial court read the standard jury
instruction on self-defense nor did he request a special jury instruction. To determine whether the
absence of a sua sponte modified instruction on self-defense constituted manifest injustice, the Court
reviewed the defense counsel’s voir dire and closing argument. Landrum, 434 Mich 513-514. In voir
dire, Landrum’s defense counsel questioned potential jurors whether they had any doubt that rape is an
act of great bodily harm. Id., 513. In closing, Landrum’s defense counsel argued that his client was
defending herself against a rape which gave her an absolute right to prevent rape or great bodily harm,
and that the trial court would instruct jurors that she had a right to do anything to protect herself even to
the point of taking a life. Id., 514. The Court noted that these statements in conjunction with the trial
court’s self-defense instruction adequately presented the defendant’s theory of her case to the jury. Id.
Therefore, the Court held that absence of a sua sponte modified instruction on self-defense did not
constitute manifest injustice. Id.
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
As in Landrum, defendant’s counsel did not object when the court read the standard jury
instruction on self-defense nor did she request a special instruction. Unquestionably, the theory of
defense was that defendant struck and killed the decedent in an effort to repel the decedent’s
homosexual attempted rape. Defendant testified at length about the attack and his relative disadvantage,
given his broken hand and decedent’s larger size and aggression initiated while defendant was asleep.
The jury was well aware, based upon defendant's testimony, that self-defense was his principle answer
to the charges brought against him. Moreover, in closing, defense counsel made arguments similar to
those made by Landrum’s defense counsel. The majority suggests that this case is distinguishable from
Landrum because defense counsel in this case made only one statement in closing relevant to
defendant’s claim of self-defense. On the contrary, a fair reading of defense counsel’s closing argument
indicates that defense counsel argued as, if not more, vigorously than the defense counsel in Landrum
that defendant was only defending himself against a sexual assault.
In fact, defense counsel made the following salient points in support of defendant’s claim of self
defense. She emphasized that defendant was terrorized when the larger, stronger, and younger
decedent attempted to have sex with defendant. Counsel explained that, in response to this terror,
defendant grabbed the first object within reach to fend off decedent’s advances and escape his grasp.
Finally, she emphasized that “this is nothing more than a case of self-defense. . . . [T]he judge will tell
you . . . that if Mr. Wallace has a reasonable belief that something is going to happen – that he is going
to be sexually penetrated or sodomized – that he has a right to protect himself.”
As such, the theory of the defense was put squarely to the jury. I find that the facts of this case
fall squarely within the Supreme Court’s holding in Landrum. Consequently, I would hold that the trial
court’s failure sua sponte to provide a modified self-defense instruction did not result in manifest
injustice, and that defendant’s conviction and sentence should be affirmed.
/s/ Robert P. Young, Jr.
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.