*1 Dobben v DOBBEN PEOPLE 1). (Calendar Argued April No. Decided 91150. Docket No. 15, 1992. September mentally jury guilty ill Bartley but a J. was found Dobben Graves, Jr., J., Court, Muskegon of two James M. Circuit first-degree The Court of murder of his children. counts of the JJ., reversed, Neff, P.J., Appeals, Hood, and Maher and expert, holding people’s psychiatric who had because the trial, competency to stand was not the defendant for examined clinician, expert examining qualified because did and an responsibility pursuant criminal examine defendant for 330.2028(3); order, violated MCL to a court 14.800(1028X3) prior competency evalua- that was based on 119010). (Docket people appeal. No. tions opinion by joined Boyle, Brickley, Justices In an Justice Supreme Griffin, Mallett, Court held: Riley, responsi- forming a criminal an of defеndant’s When expert testify independent bility, person qualified an to Code, may, the Code of the Mental Health consistent with Evidence, Procedure, rely and the Rules Criminal data, including information and con- historical on prior competency evaluations. tained in preclude did not intend 1. responsi- regarding a defendant’s who testifies witness developed during bility relying on information purpose determining of the defendant Code and the trial. The Mental Health stand in 1974 and Procedure were revised Code Criminal illness, guilty establish verdict redefine mental ill, expand responsibilities mentally Center and to Psychiatry providing evaluations and to include for Forensic regarding to stand trial and reports a defendant’s sought responsibility, commitment sub- ánd insanity. finding guilty by Section reason of to a of not _sequеnt References 2d, Expert 182-189. Evidence §§ Am Jur partly sanity Admissibility based on issue medical, hospital reports. 55 ALR3d 551. psychological, or 440 1028(3) of the Mental Health Code authorizes a clinician to opinions concerning offer a defendant’s criminal permits gathered the use of historical information *2 prior of a course the defendant. Section 20a of recognizes right indepen- the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding responsi- dent evaluation the issue criminal bility. together provisions comprehensive Taken reveal a authorizing expanded scheme use both clini- of forensic center independent experts. cians and 1028(3) examining qualified 2. Section is directed clini- cians, independent experts. It was intended to create a Psychiatry regarding dominant role for the Center for Forensic involving issues all the mental state of a défendant. To that end authorizes a who a clinician examines defendant for competency testify regarding to stand trial to at issues proceeding. the criminal If the who testifies responsibility criminal also examined the defendant for tency, gathered prior information of historical value in exami- may opinion regarding nations be used as basis of a However, nothing language in the history legislative suggests only of § the clinician competency rely who examined the defendant on information; independent may rely historical an examiner also opinion. such on information as a of an basis Section 20a of the appointment Code of Criminal Procedure sanctions the inde- pendеnt experts responsibility, to determine criminal does testimony experts. Construing not limit the of such the statutes pari materia, comprehensively has addressed questions responsibility and criminal expanded independent the roles both of clinicians and examin- require independent perform ers. To an examiner to an evalua- pursuant relying tion to a court order before on same reports and information on relied the forensic exam- center contrary iners would be to its intent. provides expert may opinion MRE 3. that an base an on perceived hearing. facts or data or made known at or before a may require underlying The court facts or data essential Thus, opinion an or inference be evidence. a witness who qualified expеrt may opinion is as an base an of a defendant’s observation, personal hypothetical witnesses, question, hearsay or the of other and on findings opinions experts. information or the of other probative depends sanity value an on the facts upon which it based. is Reversed. Opinion of the Court dissenting, Cavanagh, Levin, joined by Chief Justice Justice in the the defendant stated that because other issues raised Court, Supreme Appeals Court of were not addressed proceed- required further
remand to ings. (1991) App reversed. 468 NW2d Responsibility — — of Criminal Criminal Law Determinations Independent Experts. responsibility, forming an of a defendant’s criminal When independent expert may, qualified testify person Code, Code of Criminal with the Mental Health consistent Evidence, Procedure, rely on histori- Rules of and the data, including contained cal information and (MCL 330.2028[3]; 14.800[1028][3], evaluations 703). 768.20a[3]; 28.1043[1][3]; MRE Gay Kelley, Secor General, Frank J. Attorney Tague, Tony Hardy, General, Prosecuting Solicitor Lynch, Senior Assistant and Kevin A. Attorney, *3 Prosecuting people. for the Attorney, Bennett) P.E. (by Defender Appellate
State the defendant. decide appeal leave to granted J. We
Boyle, held that Appeals correctly Court of whether the was inadmissa- expert’s testimony independent an 1028(3) Mental of the because violated ble § 14.800(1028)(3)1. 330.2028(3); Code, MSA MCL Health 1 14.800(1028)(3)provides: 330.2028(3); MCL MSA opinion concerning to stand trial derived The may not be admitted evidence from the examination purpose except pending proceedings, on the in criminal the hearings required permitted or to be determined in issues 330.2040; 330.2030; 14.800(1030)] MSA by and [MCL MSA [MCL testimony 14.800(1040)]. foregoing shall be The bar examining prohibit qualified clinician from construed presenting concerning they Information stages proceedings the criminal at other in disposition, responsibility, other issues if or criminal requested originally by the court and are available. were gathered in of a the course 682 440 op the Court At issue is whether the statute limits independent by psychiatric an examiner offered 20a(3) pursuant §to of the Code Criminal Proce 28.1043(1)(3).2 768.20a(3); Specifi dure, MCL cally, question indepen we resolve the whether an expert may dent consider information in contained prior competency forming opin evaluations an responsibility.3 ion We hold that erred accepting premise limits testimony regarding foundation for nal сrimi- involving compe- The statutes tency insanity to stand trial and the defense of do not conflict with each other or Rules independent psychiatric An Evidence. examiner examining qualified is of historical value to the clinician any subsequent be utilized in the formulation of an court ordered evaluation. 28.1043(1)(3) provides: may, expense, indigent, defendant at her own or if expense county, independent psychiatric at the evaluation secure an a clinician of his or her choice on the issue of his insanity alleged or her at time offense was committed. notify prosecuting attorney The defendant shall at least days day independent before the scheduled for the evaluation that he or she intends to secure such an evaluation. The prosecuting аttorney may similarly independent psychi- obtain indigent A atric evaluation. clinician secured defendant approved shall be entitled receive reasonable fee as court. determining examination for is con with cerned at defendant’s mental state the time the defendant Boyle Baughman, committed the offense. & The mental state of the Through glass darkly, accused: BMich J 78 The focus is If, on the defendant’s "blameworthiness.” Id. as a result of mental *4 illness, thought defined "a substantial of disorder or mood which significantly impairs judgment, behavior, capacity recognize reality, to ability cope ordinary life,” 330.1400a; or with demands of MCL 14.800(400a), retardation, "person or mental lacks substantial capacity appreciate wrongfulness either of his conduct requirements lаw,” conform his conduct to the MCL 28.1044(1)(1), person insane, legally and thus not crimi nally responsible for his conduct. rely information contained on historical reports in reach- of opinion regarding evaluations ing Appeals of the Court
We reverse decision convictions. and reinstate defendant’s
I Bartley Dobben, was defendant, James guilty mentally counts first- ill of two found degree 28.548. He was 750.316; MSA murder. MCL imprison- of life terms to two concurrent sentenced parole. ment without the conviction reversed
The Court
people’s psychiat-
appeal.
It held that because
Halpern,
expert,
exam-
who had
Dr.
ric
Abraham
trial,
to stand
ined the defendant
examining qualified clinician, and be-
not an
was
Halpern
the defendant
not examine
Dr.
did
cause
responsibility pursuant
court
to a
for criminal
testimony at
trial
order,
admission of his
14.800(1028)(3),
330.2028(3); MSA
violated
required
reversal.
error
and was
(1991).
granted
App 462, 471;
We
II Thanksgiving Day, 1987, Dob- November On young Dobben, who his children. killed two ben religious preoccupation history and bi- had a suffering diagnosed as behavior, had been zarre hospitalized schizophrenia paranoid and was day question, in 1985. On for two months operator foundry Foundry. employed as a ladle Dobben was Muskegon at the Cannon Dobben, defendant, wife, Susan Thanksgiving at the dinner to eat children were *5 440 Opinion parents. home the defendant’s Rather than going parents’ directly home, to his Dobben drove foundry, ostensibly Bible, to the to retrieve his which he had left there. He also indicated that he Upon wanted entering show he his sons where worked. foundry, which was shut down Thanksgiving, seсurity guard, he chatted with the making holiday. small talk about He also explained that he wanted show his sons where signed log worked, he and he visitor’s sheet. stayed His wife in the car.
Dobben walked to the area where he worked in foundry. placed the foundry He the children into the "played they
ladle and with them like slag were in the was placed [He] sandbox. told them that the just got like dirt.” ladle, He then out of the top, torch, lid lit the and returned to guard plant. station at the entrance of the asphixiation. children died of
III arraignment At 27, 1987, Dobben’s November respond refused, failed, he to the court’s questions. Testimony indicated that he had been unresponsive day since his arrest before. On a people, motion the court ordered Dobben Psychiatry committed to the Center for Forеnsic Ypsilanti, to be evaluated for to stand participate preliminary trial and to in exami- nation.
Dobben was first evaluated for through 1, 1987, stand trial from December 14, 1987, Everett, Ph.D., December L. Moses certified forensic examiner.4 Dr. Everett concluded Qualifications for title certified forensic examiner are found in AACS, 330.10056, provides: R which Dobben criteria[5] statutory did not meet
that "Dobben incompetency trial,” and recom to stand "adjudicated as that he be to the court mended competent to stand trial.” in- while deteriorated mental state
Defendant’s
*6
applicant
a
forensic exam-
certified
An
certification
CD
examining facility
attainment
demonstrate to
iner shall
the
require-
educational,
experiential
following
licensing, and
ments:
(b)
following:
psychologists,
of thе
both
For
(i)
psychology
degree
in
from an accred-
Ph.D.
A master’s
or
substantially
program
clinical
in a curriculum
ited
nature..
psy-
(ii)
Michigan
limited license as a
or
A State of
license
chologist.
(d)
and
Familiarity
literature
and federal
relevant
with
pertaining
incompetency to
trial.
to
stand
cases
(e)
legal process,
system,
mental
Knowledge
court
of the
law, and criminal law.
health
pertinent
(f) Knowledge
issues
relevant clinical and ethical
practice.
and forensic
witness
to
to
related
(g)
of 5 examinations
and discussion
Observation
incompetency
or
trial with
certified
to stand
the issue of
consulting forensic examiner.
(h)
the issue of
related to
examinations
Performance
supervi-
under the direct
incompetency to
trial conducted
stand
еxaminer,
including
consulting forensic
or
sion of a certified
material,
contacts,
prepara-
analysis
attorney
of collateral
report.
cosigned court
tion of the
presented
(i)
expert testimony
and discussion
Observation
consulting
examiner.
or
forensic
a certified
expert witness under
(j)
trial as an
in mock
Performance
consulting
critique
forensic
of a certified
the observation and
examiner.
(k)
under the
witness
consulting
court as
Performance
critique
forensic
of a certified or
observation
examiner.
(2)
substantially
examining facility
similar
allow
requirements in subdivi
experience
all or
of the
to meet
(1)
(k)
(g)
of this rule.
to
of subrule
sions
only
incompetent
trial
to stand
defendant "shall be determined
A
understanding
incapable
mental condition
because
if he is
the nature and
his defense
assisting
against
proceedings
object
him or
330.2020(1); MSA
manner.”
in a rational
14.800(1020)(1).
In another July, evaluation was conducted. The examiner recommended that Dob- adjudicated ben be competent stand trial.
A notice of insanity defense was filed defense counsel pursuant to MCL 28.1043(1)(1).6 The cоurt ordered Dobben un dergo examination for criminal Dr. Stock, had who previously evaluated Dobben for Blunt, M.D., competency, Lynn the Clinical Director of the Center for Forensic Psychiatry, conducted the evaluation at the forensic center. It *7 was their Dobben was mentally ill at the killings time of the "because illness, mental he was to appreciate unable wrongfulness of his conduct and conform con his duct requirements to the of law.”
An order was entered allowing the defendant prosecutor and the each to obtain two witnesses, prosecutor and the notified the defen- dant, pursuant to MCL 28.1043(1)(3), of the two independent experts he intended to call arranged at trial.7 by He for Dobben to be seen 28.1043(1), 768.20a; Under MCL if a defendant intends to insanity, notify assert the defensе of the defendant must court prosecutor writing. and the this intent The court must order the undergo by personnel defendant an evaluation either the Center at Psychiatry by qualified persons perform for Forensic or examinations for criminal 7Although prosecutor a letter from defense counsel to the acknowl edged one, experts, only Halpern, eventually two Dr. Abraham was prosecutor. used Opinion of the Court Halpern, Chester, M.D., New of Port
Abraham Halpern defendant, re- met with York. Dr. psycho- medical the defendant’s viewed compiled by reports, reports logical police records, competency, regarding the defendant’s center report prepared by experts, Blunt. Drs. Stock and the defendant’s essentially Drs. records that the same These were Although Dr. Hal- and Blunt had reviewed. Stock agreed pern and Blunt that Dob- with Drs. Stock agree mentally ill,8 that Dob- he did not ben was capac- capacity, substantial let alone ben "lacked wrongfulness appreciate ity, of his either 26, 1987, his or to conform on November conduct requirements of to the law.” conduct
A
disputed
trial,
issue was the
At
the critical
at the time of the offense.
mental state
defendant’s
dispute
principal
whether
was
focus
insanity,
guilty
reason
defendant was
guilty
mentally
occasions,
several
de
ill. On
citing
counsel,
for his
as
basis
fense
sought
prevent
people’s
objections,
testifying
was based
because
performed
part on the evaluations for
appeal,
the center’s staff. On
agreed
that admission of
and held
requiring
testimony was error
reversal.9
did, however, disagree
Halpern
Drs.
and Blunt
with
Stock
Dr.
Halpern
just
type
suffered. Dr.
what
of mental
illness Dobben
about
diagnosed
disorder,
(paranoid)
297.10.
DSM-III-R
Dobben
delusional
diagnosed
schizophrenic.
Dobben as
Drs. Stock and Blunt
Halpern’s
argued
report did not
Dr.
Dobben also
that because
*8
Procedure,
requirements
comply
of Criminal
with the
of the Code
28.1043(1)(6)(b),
768.20a(6)(b);
Halpern
Dr.
not have
should
MCL
MSA
Appeals
testify. Although
declined
allowed to
been
Assuming arguendo
issue, we have reviewed the claim.
address the
that
preclude
Of
intended to
other those rendering opinions examinations were barred from part criminal on the gained prior competency basis of information evaluations, the Court further concluded that re against testimony regarding moval of the barrier responsibility by forensic center clinicians experts. did not extend to other
IV
follow,
For the reasons that
we hold report
statute,
comply
where the form of
defect in the
report
any
did not
with the
reрort
prejudice
did
Halpern’s
Dr.
defendant.
supplemented
was
trial
before
interviews
the witness
extensively
defense counsel. Defense counsel
cross-examined Dr. Hal-
pern,
background psychological
had access to the same
information as
Halpern,
Halpern’s
Dr.
and received Dr.
notes.
We also find no merit
claim
the cumulative effect of a
evidentiary rulings
series of erroneous
denied defendant a fair trial.
People Robinson,
(1972);
769.26;
NW2d
MCL
2.613(A).
28.1096;
MCR
statute,
predecessor
28.966(11)(4)
pro
vided:
diagnostic report
and recommendations
shall be admissi-
hearing [adjudicating competency
ble as evidence in the
trial],
purpose
stand
pending
but not for
in the
proceedings.
witness relying infor- historical nal during developed an examination mation competency determination.
A again clarify discussion, set forth we To 1028(3) MCL Health Code. the Mental § text of of 14.800(1028)(3) 330.2028(3); provides: MSA stand concerning competency to The may not be from the examination trial derived pend- purpose in the any as evidence admitted except on the issues to proceedings, ing criminal hearings required permit- or be determined ted 14.800(1030)] 330.2030; MSA [MCL 330.2040; 14.800(1040)]. foregoing [MCL prohibit not be construed testimony shall bar the presenting examining clinician from qualified opin- proceedings stages in other at disposi- responsibility, concerning criminal ions tion, originally re- if they issues were Informa- and are available. quested by tion that fied clinician court of a gathered in the course quali- examining historical to the is of value in the formulation of be utilized subsequent ordered evalu- court ation. Appeals opinion fallacy in the Court assumption sentence that because last affirmatively admis- authorize not does disputed evidence, it is not admissible.
sion of Halpern Thus, not both com- Dr. was because petency for determin- the examiner examiner responsibility, ing was "his portion statute.” this under 471. authorized App However, did not con- the Court Mich op significance provision sider the of the related Procedure, 768.20a; the Code of Criminal 28.1043(1). Examination of the entire statu- tory systemic scheme, the effect Appeals opinion, and the Rules Evi- dence, demonstrates the error of the Court’s con- clusion. *10 original historical limitation of the bar
regarding testimony competency of the examiner general scope was not a limitation of the of testi- mony by independent expert, legislative but a judgment,12 by followed and refined case authori- ty,13 involuntarily tency permit was unfair to the state to
commit a defendant for a subsequently examination and use that ex- amination dant was a basis for an that the defen- criminally responsible. expanding
Thereafter, a series of decisions
the
purposes
of
definition mental
for
illness
the
responsibility
narrowing
defense of criminal
and
both the
for
conditions
civil commitment and for
following
finding
guilty by
commitment
reason of
a
of not
insanity,
legislative
led
ato
overhaul of
the Mental Health Code and the Code of Criminal
People
See
McQuillan,
Procedure.
v
511;
392 Mich
(1974); People
221
569
Martin,
NW2d
v
386 Mich
(1971);
Wayne
407;
the clinician
concerning
responsibility”
*11
ex-
and
criminal
ions
14
179;
initially adopting
PA
In
1975 PA
1975
180.
See 1974 PA
form,
recognized
Legislature expressly
this
the
in this
the
statute
Martin,
supra,
interpretation
the Court of
in
and
Court’s
28.966(11)(4),
Schneider,
interpretation
supra, of
MSA
in
MCL
replaced.
258
the
1974 PA
statute that
258,
Legislature
by
in
PA
the former version
the
1974
As enacted
14.800(1028)(3)
330.2028(3);
provided:
MCL
MSA
gathered
in the course
the examination and
Information
may
the
not be admitted as
from
derived
proceedings,
any purpose
pending
in the
criminal
for
evidence
required
hearings
except
to
on the issues
be determined
330.2030;
14.800(1030)]
permitted
and [MCL
MSA
[MCL
330.2040;
14.800(1040)].
foregoing
bar of
prohibit
not
an individual who did
not
construed to
shall
participate
be
rely upon
information or
in the examination or
testifying
opinions resulting
from
from the examination
proceedings.
pending
in the
criminal
other issues
14.800(1050).
330.2050;
PA
See 1974
Sections
20a
were enacted
their
present
form
tie-barred
PA
B 1028(3) "examining quali- Section is directed to independent experts. spe- clinician[s],”16 fied It cifically lifts the former bar use informa- precluding tion center, members of the forensic only opinion concerning competency” "the any purpose admission as evidence for added.) proceeding. (Emphasis plain language legislative of the statute indicates the intent to create a dominant role for center involving all issues the mental state aof end, § defendant. To that authorizes clinician who examines a defendant for tency testify regarding to stand trial proceeding. Thus, issues at the criminal if the same clinician competency, who examined a defendant clinician use information that is of historical currently twenty-one examiners, statewide, qualified There are only examine a defendant to stand trial. There are an *12 thirty-four qualified additional examiners a examine defendant responsibility. for both and criminal Dobben op gathered in exami- been has
value regarding crimi- a of his nations as basis nothing responsibility. However, lan- nal guage 1028(3) only suggests history § of for the defendant who examined clinician rely tency information. on historical nothing language simply short, in the there is In 1028(3), indicating context, § or its historical of independent legislative purpose preclude an relying as a on historical data basis examiner from 1028(3) opinion. purpose § is to of for his center in the forensic the central' role of enhance evaluating criminal defendant’s
c prior law, of nor as the Court Neither Appeals assumed, the use of historical evi- barred experts testifying by independent dence responsibility. Contrary to issue assumption Appeals, testimony of the Court of "examining qualified by experts than the § 20a the Code of clinician” addressed Balancing expansion Criminal Procedure. government-employed or certified role Legislature, § 20a, clinician, the addressed respon- procedure raising for the issue legislative gave sibility and, time, for first appointment independent ex- to the sanction perts. procedure This statute now sets forth the filing insanity defense, mandates a notice of an receipt upon of a notice the center provides defense, to assert the intention independent psychiatric re- evaluation when an quested prosecuting or the
either the defendant attorney. no 20a makes reference Section expert, testimony of such an in the limitation *13 440 Opinion op the Court "[statements than that made the defendant . . . not ... shall be admissible . . . issues other than mental illness or insan- ity alleged at the time of the offense.”17Nor does require appointment specific indepen- § 20a of a examining psychiatrist. dent Construing pari materia, the statutes it is Legislature comprehensively cleár that the has questions addressed the and crimi responsibility, expanded nal the roles both of independent the clinician the Thus, examiner. only contrary anomalous, is to this require independent intent that an examiner perform pursuant an evaluation to a court order may rely reports before the examiner on the same and information relied on the forensic center examiners.18
Finally,
systemic
restricting
effect of
scope
indepen-
of the
for the
basis
fallacy
dent examiner
reveals the
of the conclu-
independent experts
sion. Forensiс clinicians and
typically
following positions
more
take the
in crim-
inal
trials: The forensic center’s
testifies
responsible,
criminally
that
the
is
defendant
independent expert
testifies that he is not
criminally responsible.
configuration,
In this
if Appeals analysis
correct,
Court of
preclude
examining
would
a defense
significance
govern-
historical material of
to the
expert witness,
ment’s
a conclusion that would
raise concerns
both confrontation and
right
the defendant’s
to fundamental
fairness. We
Sorna,
independent
28.1043(1)(3)
should
18Indeed,
occur
768.20a(5);
as the
and the
"without
evaluation
App
351, 359;
subsequent exchange
the need for
28.1043(1)(5).
provided
independent examiner.19 consistent construed, the statutes are also
So
policy expressed
Rules
with the
governing expert
specifically
rule
Evidence and
underlying assumption
testimony,
703. The
MRE
*14
reliability of
is that
of the Rules of Evidence
by
truth-finding process
enhanced
admis-
is
probative
102.
See MRE
MRE
evidence.
sion of all
opinion
expert may
provides
base
703
perceived by
. .
or
.
made
on "facts or data
hearing. The
him or before the
court
known to
may require
at
underlying
facts or data essential
opinion
Thus,
a
inference be
evidence.”
to an
or
qualified
expert may state his
who is
as an
witness
person’s
on
basis
of a
mental condition
question,
hypothetical
or the
observation,
a
Wharton,
3
Criminal
of other witnesses.
(14th ed),
pp
An
§ 570,
334-341.20
Evidence
hearsay
witness
also base his
19
"subsequent
mentioned in MCL
court ordered evaluation”
14.800(1028)(3)
330.2028(3);
specially
a
court-
the court-
refers
to
evaluation,
found,
to
the Court of
ordered
ordered evaluation for criminal
mandatory
responsibility,
under MCL
28.1043(1)(2).
768.20a(2);MSA
28.1043(1)
1983,
Legislature
768.20a;
In
to
amended
persons qualified
perform
of criminal
allow other
responsibility
to
evaluations
42;
perform
PA
also
such examinations. See 1983
see
AACS,
Regu
(Department of Mental Health
1988
R 330.10055-10059
centers).
qualification
examiners and forensic
lations for
The
of forensic
clinicians at
Detroit Recorder’s
amendment allowed
responsibility in
Clinic to evaluate defendants
determine
they
performing.
HB
had
addition to the
4091,
evaluations
been
H-1,
Analysis,
March
1983.
Substitute
First
undergo
types
recognized
tions
will
evаlua
that "a defendant
often
both
the same time.” Id.
at
(1940);
Hawthorne,
People
Indeed, limitation of the basis of an opinion to firsthand in- formation would require[] ignore, a medical as best he can, data which from viewpoint the scientific
highly namely, doctor proper account, relevant and to take into
the history of the case as related to the patient relatives, and his and re- charts, ports, records prepared and other data other medical men. In psychiatry, patient’s past medical and social history prime impor- is of psychiatrist tance. A diagnosis hesitates to make a without the illumination afforded what he calls "longitudinal study of behavior.” But often he learns the history patient’s of a aberrant behavior only at second or third hand from friends or relatives, perhaps through psychiatric social worker. Where the law psychiatrist forbids the diagnosis rest his material, on such hearsay requires him diagnosis to base his on what from the run viewpoint scientific incomplete are data —or having the risk of his entire testimony thrown out. Even where the psychiatrist per- has made a examination, sonal if he admits on cross-examina- tion diagnosis that his part rests in on such second *15 or third reports, hand chagrined he be hear cause judge the order his testimony stricken be- hearsay.
based on
exclusionary
safeguards
rule overlooks
[An]
the
(1)
provides:
the law
expert
the fact that
the
is an
diagnosis
appraising
and in
the value of
(2)
him;
the statements made to
the discretion of
the trial court to exclude statements not necessary
(3)
diagnosis;
the opportunity
contradicting
of
21People Anderson,
455,
App
465;
v
(1988),
166 Mich
by cross-examination [Weihofen, Men- opinion. demolishing expert’s the Defense, p tal as a Criminal 287.] Disorder inde- the conclusion Court on histor- not base pendent expert may with therefore inconsistent ical information is underlying the policy MRE and with 70322 Anderson, 455; 421 v App 166 Mich rule. (1988).23 200 NW2d on and circumstances
Uncovering
facts
is
is essential
based
expert’s opinion
which an
determine whether
experts
enable other
correct, and
the witness are
expressed
opinions
importantly,
wrong.
if
Most
to contradict
them
opin-
foundation
without
the relative
ion,
the factfinders’
evaluation
necessarily
offered is
circum-
value of the
ultimate determi-
reliability
its
scribed and
compromised.
correspondingly
nation
stated,
opin
of an
value
"probative
Simply
it is
upon
which
depends
on
facts
sanity
ion
453,
331
465;
People Murphy,
v
based.”
(1982).2
NW2d 152
4
conflict,
474, 478-480;
CONCLUSION person qualified testify independent A as an expert may, consistent with the Mental Health Code, the Procedure, Code of Criminal and the rely Evidence, Rules of on historical including data, information and con- prior competency tained in evaluations, when forming opinion regarding a defеndant’s crimi- responsibility. nal Sections and 20a do not independent expert may limit the information an opinion regarding use as the basis of an We therefore reverse the decision of the Court of guilty and reinstate the convictions of mentally ill. JJ., Brickley, Riley, Griffin, Mallett,
concurred with
Boyle,
J.
4242(a) provides
18 USC
rely
when the defendant intends to
on
insanity,
the defense of
psychiatric
the court
psychological
shall order that a
exami-
nation of the defendant be.conducted ....
4241,
only
finding
Under 18 USC
it is
to stand
trial
statutes
competency
is not admissible at the later criminal trial. The federal
psychiatrist
contain "no absolute bar to the
who conducts the
testifying
sanity.” People
also on the issue of
Garland,
215, 226-227,
(1974)
and n
make himself available for may that he be committed without tion and hearing further if he fails to do so.4 The statute examining provides psychiatrist shall con that make himself with defense counsel who shall sult purpose.5 that available for 1028(3), providing Section may concerning сompetency trial not be to stand purpose pending any in a admitted as evidence for except proceeding, issue of on the protect tency trial, accused’s to stand seeks right self-incrimina- silent and avoid to remain Michigan, "In the results tion. This Court has said: 1 14.800(1028)(3). 330.2028(3); MSA MCL 2 1, Const, V; Am art 17. § US Const 3 Smith, 454, 462, 465; 68 L Ed 2d 101 S Ct Estelle v 451 US 14.800(1026). 330.2026; MCL 14.800(1028). 330.2028; MSA 440 Dissenting Opinion Levin, J. examinations not be used at guilt, obviating trial as of a evidence defendant’s Fifth Amendment concerns self-incrimi- nation.”6
II 1028(3), permitting The third sentence of infor- gathered mation examination in the course of a is of historical value to uti- be lized in the formulation of an "subsequent evaluation,” court ordered refers to a subsequent competency examination, second or *18 respecting responsibil- to an examination ity. empowered
No court an to ordеr accused person concerning to an submit evaluation his responsibility. sure, criminal must, specting To be an accused expert if he wishes to offer re- responsibility, permit his criminal people’s expert him, witnesses also to examine but pursuant such an examination is not to court permit order. If an fails to accused examination expert, people’s people’s remedy is to offering expert seek to bar the accused from testi- mony support insanity of an defense. The rem- edy directing is not to seek obtain a court order the defendant to submit to an examination con- cerning responsibility. his criminal
III sought Halpern relying Dobben to bar Dr. during on his statements the course tency formulating his con- cerning Dobben’s criminal His mo- tion was While denied. Dobbеn’s witnesses 6 (1988). People 282, Wright, v Mich 133 NW2d People Dissenting Opinion Levin, J. dur- may statements relied on Dobben’s have also appears competency ing examination, they their able to render have been during independently Dobben’s statements testify they until examination; did not adversely to Dobben. ruled the court had Appeals to the Court of would remand We statutory waived Dobben whether determine privileges when his Fifth Amendment respon- concerning his criminal testified witnesses partial possibly he sibility, what reliance on during examina- the course of said tion.7 majority convic- the defendant’s reinstates thereby ignoring mentally guilty ill,
tions of raised Dobben other issues there are Appeals, partially appeal dealt in the Court require opinion, remand in its which with Appeals. proceedings in Court of further Levin, J. Cavanagh, C.J., with concurred Garland, 232-233; 224 NW2d See