People v. Robinson, Docket No. 67625
Citation | 417 Mich. 231,331 N.W.2d 226 |
Decision Date | 25 March 1983 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 67625 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. McClinton ROBINSON, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Supreme Court of Michigan |
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Edward Reilly Wilson, Chief Appellate, Asst. Pros. Atty. and Janice M. Joyce-Bartee, Asst. Pros. Atty., Detroit, for the People.
Gerald M. Lorence, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.
This defendant has been convicted of second-degree murder following the death of a woman whom he shot in the arm. At trial, he interposed the defense that her death was caused by grossly erroneous medical treatment. The issue before us is whether the trial court properly excluded certain expert testimony offered by the defendant. We hold that the trial court erred in excluding the proffered evidence, and we reverse.
The defendant shot the victim on November 5, 1978. The victim's attending physicians tried first to save her arm, but the limb was amputated on November 11, 1978. The victim died on December 14, 1978. At the time of her death, she had an advanced case of pneumonia, and infection had spread throughout her body.
The defendant's position was that the failure of the victim's treating physicians to amputate the arm earlier constituted grossly erroneous treatment. 1 To support this view, the defendant called to the stand the Oakland County medical examiner. The witness testified that the arm should have been amputated immediately and that, had the arm been removed promptly, the victim would not have died. He said that the death had been caused by infection and pneumonia and that proper medical treatment would have consisted of a prompt amputation.
Defense counsel sought to ask the witness whether the victim had received grossly erroneous medical treatment, but the trial court repeatedly refused to allow such a statement, saying that such testimony would be "a legal conclusion" and thus improper.
The Court of Appeals affirmed. People v. Robinson, 107 Mich.App. 417, 309 N.W.2d 624 (1981). On May 24, 1982, we ordered the prosecutor to show cause "why the defendant's conviction should not be reversed because defendant's medical expert, although qualified to do so, was not permitted to testify that failure to immediately amputate the arm of the victim was grossly negligent medical treatment". The prosecutor has answered this order and the defendant has responded.
The trial court erred in excluding this testimony. MRE 704 provides that "[t]estimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact". The Court of Appeals acknowledged that rule, but drew from People v. Drossart, 99 Mich.App. 66, 297 N.W.2d 863 (1980), an analysis that led to the conclusion that the trial court properly excluded the medical examiner's expert opinion:
"Thus, according to this Court's decision in Drossart, it would appear that while a psychiatrist may testify that in his opinion a defendant was 'insane' at the time of an alleged offense, an expert may not opine on the degree of negligence in a medical malpractice case where a jury is as capable as anyone else of reaching such a conclusion on certain facts." Robinson, 107 Mich.App. 421-422, 309 N.W.2d 624.
Even if one fully accepts the principles stated in Drossart, the testimony proffered by this defendant was admissible. The Oakland County medical examiner did not propose to opine as to guilt or innocence. Rather he proposed to opine as to the nature of medical care received by the victim. A characterization of medical treatment as "grossly erroneous" is entirely proper if...
To continue reading
Request your trial