On June 12, 2017, a tragic domestic dispute resulted in the death of 36-year-old African American male Eric Hatchett, a resident of Southfield, Michigan. The incident occurred in Detroit at an auto repair business located in the 19900 block of James Couzens, which was owned by Hatchett’s father. Reports indicate that late that Monday afternoon, Hatchett and his father became involved in a heated verbal altercation at the shop.
The argument escalated into a physical confrontation during which Hatchett allegedly struck his father in the face. Following this strike, the older man produced a handgun and fired multiple shots, striking Hatchett in the back.
After the shooting, the father drove his wounded son to a local hospital in an attempt to seek medical attention, but Hatchett was pronounced dead shortly after arrival. Law enforcement officials launched an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the fatal shooting, focusing on the claim of self-defense versus the severity of the response. The findings led prosecutors to file formal criminal charges against Hatchett's father, Karleton James Wright, who was 50 years old at the time of the incident. Wright was arraigned in the 36th District Court on charges of second-degree murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony.
The case eventually proceeded to trial where the defense argued that Wright acted in self-defense following the physical assault by his son. The prosecution maintained that the shooting was unjustified, presenting surveillance footage that showed Wright shooting Hatchett three times as the altercation escalated. The jury received instructions allowing them to consider voluntary manslaughter as a lesser offense. Ultimately, Karleton Wright was acquitted of second-degree murder but was convicted by the jury of voluntary manslaughter and the felony firearm charge. He was initially sentenced to a prison term of 19 months to 15 years for the manslaughter conviction, to be served consecutively with a mandatory two-year sentence for the weapon charge. This sentence was later subject to legal appeals regarding the calculation of sentencing guidelines, leading a higher court to affirm the convictions while remanding the case for resentencing.
