People v. Jackson, Docket No. 77-130

• Decision Date: 06 December 1977
• Docket Number: Docket No. 77-130
• Citation: 263 N.W.2d 44,80 Mich.App. 244
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Desi S. JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant. 80 Mich.App. 244, 263 N.W.2d 44
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 44

263 N.W.2d 44

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Desi S. JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 77-130.

80 Mich.App. 244, 263 N.W.2d 44

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Dec. 6, 1977.

Released for Publication March 14, 1978.

[80 MICHAPP 245] Montigel, Mackie & Harris by William J. Harris, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Richard Gay, Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before R. B. BURNS, P. J., and D. E. HOLBROOK and MARTIN, ^* JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant was found "guilty but mentally ill" after a trial for assault with intent to commit murder. He was sentenced to prison and appeals. His principal claims are that M.C.L.A. § 768.36; M.S.A. § 28.1059 is unconstitutional under the due process and equal protection clauses of our constitution.

Is defendant deprived of his right to equal protection by the classification of "guilty but mentally ill"? We think not. Defendant complains that a person who is mentally ill at the time of his committing a crime who does not plead insanity can't be found "guilty but mentally ill" under our statute. This is true. The Legislature does not have to make every single category absolutely air tight and all inclusive in order to keep the classification [80 MICHAPP 246] reasonable and nonarbitrary. People v. Murphy, 364 Mich. 363, 110 N.W.2d 805 (1961); People's Appliance, Inc. v. City of Flint, 358 Mich. 34, 99 N.W.2d 522 (1959). The Legislature created definitions for certain crimes but then said people could be excused from the commission of these crimes if they were insane at the time of the commission. The Legislature, after many years and much pressure, created an in-between classification those mentally ill but not legally insane at the time of the commission of the offense. They created special rules as to their disposition after a finding to that effect.

There are reasons for such a classification. Some find reasons not to have it. The Legislature is the proper body to determine if classifications should be adopted. It is not an arbitrary or unreasonable classification.

Defendant does not have standing to challenge the mandatory 5 years probation provision as he was sentenced to prison.

The fact that one must plead insanity before one can be found "guilty but mentally ill" does not invalidate the statute. The Legislature had a right to make such a classification that was not all inclusive. This Court is sure that if the defendant's counsel thought his client was mentally ill at the time of the crime, he would plead insanity in order to get a verdict of "guilty but mentally ill". If defendant is claiming insanity at the time of the offense and it is factually possible that he was sane and guilty but mentally ill at the time of the commission of the offense, the Legislature can insist on such a classification.

Defendant complains that the trier of the fact "may" find the defendant guilty but mentally ill and not that it "must" find him guilty but mentally[80 MICHAPP 247] ill....