https://www.iosconews.com/news/article_79284495-a996-49ec-874e-e057966f07e3.html
TAWAS CITY – Melissa Christine Ragen, who was bound over from the Iosco County 81st District Court in Tawas City this past fall, has attended her first hearing at the Iosco County 23rd Circuit Court.
As it pertains to the two felony charges she is currently facing, the 32-year-old AuSable Township resident appeared for a pre-trial and arraignment on Jan. 5, before Judge David C. Riffel.
Along with advising the involved attorneys that discovery is to be completed within the next 90 days, Riffel ordered that bond is to be continued. It was also noted that a 10-day jury trial is anticipated for this case.
Riffel then informed the defendant that her next hearing, a status conference, will be set for 10 a.m. on Monday, April 13.
As previously reported in this publication, Ragen was arrested for the fatal shooting of her husband – James Thomas Ragen IV, 31 – which took place in their home on the night of Oct. 6, 2025.
She has been charged by Iosco County Prosecuting Attorney James Bacarella with one count apiece of homicide–open murder and felony firearm. If convicted, the former carries a term of life in prison, while the latter is punishable by an additional two years.
The court documents associated with this case, as well as all of Ragen’s hearings thus far, have been summarized in prior editions of this publication. But to recap, it is alleged that while having an argument with Ragen IV, the defendant retrieved a .357 caliber revolver and fired a single round into her husband’s chest. Lifesaving measures were attempted by the Oscoda Township Police Department (OTPD) officers who were first on scene, and then Iosco County EMS personnel, but Ragen IV was ultimately pronounced deceased at 11:13 p.m.
The couple shared several children, who were asleep upstairs at the time of the shooting.
Ragen was subsequently taken into custody and lodged at the Iosco County Jail in Tawas City, without bond.
As the case progressed, her co-counsel provided their reasoning for why they felt that bond should be offered in this particular situation. Although initially denied by District Court Judge Christopher P. Martin, he eventually granted the request.
As reported, this occurred at the end of a nearly three-hour preliminary examination on Nov. 12, 2025. While the defense team proposed an amount of $100,000, 10% cash/surety, Martin set the bond at $1 million, 10% cash/surety. He also outlined several conditions with which Ragen must comply, including that she is to not reside any place where there are guns, locked or otherwise; is to not have any alcohol, marijuana or illegal drugs; is to have no contact with Ragen IV’s child that he shared with his ex-wife; and is to be placed on an electronic tether and confined to her home.
Ragen was, in fact, released from jail later that same evening.
The preliminary exam – which was detailed in a two-part story that ran in the Nov. 26, 2025 and Dec. 3, 2025 editions of this publication – is also when Martin bound Ragen over to circuit court.
As noted, both the judge and Bacarella have shared their belief that the question of whether the shooting was justified as an act of self-defense, is best left to the trier of fact, and should therefore be determined via jury trial.
Ragen has pled not guilty and her legal counsel, Attorneys Justin Wilson and Devin Pommerenke, have asserted a justification of self-defense.
According to what was relayed to law enforcement, the defendant and her husband had been arguing, Ragen decided to take a shower, but Ragen IV allegedly followed her into the bathroom. One of the OTPD officers who gave testimony said that Ragen tried to leave but her husband wouldn’t let her, allegedly grabbing her by the back of the neck and forcing her to stay in the bathroom.
Ragen found a way to get past her husband and, when she went into the bedroom to try to create some distance between the two, Ragen IV allegedly continued to follow her. The defendant told the officer that she was on the far side of the bed, opposite from the entry/exit to the bedroom, while on the phone. Alleging that Ragen IV was coming after her, Ragen indicated that she grabbed a pistol from the safe which was situated between the wall and the bed.
She accused her husband of lunging at her, which is when – allegedly without even realizing it – she pointed the gun down and pulled the trigger. Believing that she was still on the phone with Isabella Smith at the time, this is when Ragen is said to have hung up, dropped the weapon and dialed 9-1-1.
The defense further claimed that Ragen had been assaulted by her husband a couple weeks prior, for which he allegedly put his hands around her neck, as to choke her. Taking this and other factors into account, including Ragen IV’s domestic violence history with another former partner, Wilson stated that on the night of Oct. 6, 2025, Ragen was feeling afraid for her safety and what her husband might do. Allegedly believing that she was in danger, the attorney claims that Ragen ultimately took out a firearm, told Ragen IV to stay away from her and that she just wanted to be left alone.
As reported, Wilson said that the two items a court must satisfy in a preliminary exam, are whether a crime was committed and that there is probable cause to believe the defendant is the person who committed the offense. He noted that in this case, it really comes down to the first part, as Ragen has already acknowledged that she shot her husband.
“And she explained, extensively, to the officers that night – while cooperating and providing statements – why she did that,” Wilson said, during the preliminary examination.
One of the elements of homicide that the prosecution has to prove, he went on, is a lack of justification. Wilson said that the police investigation immediately led to Ragen claiming that she acted in self-defense, and providing the details of same.
In reference to allegations that Ragen had pointed guns at her spouse in the past, Wilson said there was no testimony as to why. He maintained that if this is true, there is no evidence that it wasn’t necessary during those instances, as well, in self-defense.
He reiterated the defense’s stance that no crime was committed, and the homicide was entirely justifiable.
Bacarella has provided his arguments to the contrary, and pointed out that with a claim of self-defense, there has to be an immediate threat of serious injury or death.
He cited the witness testimony which was given, that help was on the way the night Ragen IV died. “It was literally seconds from being there,” he said at the time.
As reported, Smith testified to receiving a call at 10:49 p.m. from Ragen, who stated that she and Ragen IV were arguing and that he was allegedly trying to attack her. However, the witness could hear them bickering in the background and – based on her years of experience working at a call center and being trained to distinguish background noise/distance from the primary caller – she estimated Ragen IV to be five to 10 feet away from Ragen.
Smith said that when she got the call, she began making the approximate five-minute drive from her home to the Ragen household, which is something she had also done on different occasions in the past, in an attempt to help diffuse arguments between the couple.
She stated that she remained on the phone while en route, and that as the conversation continued, Ragen allegedly told Smith that she had a gun.
Smith, who said that she told Ragen to stop being stupid and to put the gun down, further alleged that this was the fifth time in the last year that the defendant had pulled a gun on Ragen IV.
Ragen reportedly proceeded to yell at her husband, until hanging up on Smith at 10:55 p.m., when she was about 30 seconds away from reaching the home. Smith entered the residence when she arrived, where she observed Ragen IV laying on the floor in front of the bedroom door, with blood coming from his chest. She testified that Ragen was on the other side of the bed, across the room from Ragen IV.
According to Smith’s statement on the stand, Ragen allegedly initially told her that Ragen IV shot himself in the head.
She didn’t say anything else, until she walked Smith into the living room, smirked at her and allegedly admitted, “I shot him in the chest.”
Listing this testimony, as well as the photographic evidence of the blood spatter in the bedroom, Bacarella added that Ragen IV was on the opposite side of the bed, with obstacles between himself and Ragen – which would make the immediacy of her being in danger, a question for a jury.
As part of his closing arguments, Bacarella stated that with regard to the homicide count, he doesn’t think there’s a question that Ragen shot Ragen IV, causing his death; she pointed the gun and intended to do so; she is the owner of the handgun that was utilized; and she has allegedly pulled a gun five times prior, “that we know of, so it’s not a new conduct for her.”
Bacarella noted that Ragen had called Smith before the shooting, she knew Smith was on the way, the two were talking during the Ragens’ argument and, prior to shooting the victim, she was asked by Smith to put the gun down.
He added that Ragen initially said her husband shot himself in the head, indicating that she had the opportunity to think about it or come up with the excuse, before it was determined that Ragen IV was actually shot in the chest.
Due to such aspects, Bacarella said he didn’t believe that the argument of self-defense was sufficient to actually show that Ragen was in immediate harm or immediate danger of harm. “I think that goes to assist with both the premeditation – the fact that she had the opportunity to think about this – coupled with apparent lack of self-defense. Why would you make up a story, if it were really, truly self-defense, and then come back to what she told the police later on?”
Bacarella therefore told Martin that he believed the prosecution had met their burden for the crimes as charged, adding, “While they may put on self-defense as a defense at trial still, I don’t think it’s sufficient to overcome probable cause in this case.”
Martin’s explanation for his rulings during the exam, were also summarized in the aforementioned articles.
As the case proceeds, additional updates will continue to be provided in future editions of this publication.
