People v. James
| Decision Date | 05 December 1978 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 77-1977 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Earl JAMES, Defendant-Appellant. 87 Mich.App. 412, 274 N.W.2d 801 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[87 MICHAPP 413] Rose Mary C. Robinson, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Edward R. Wilson, Appellate Chief Asst. Pros. Atty., Robert J. Sheiko, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before BEASLEY, P. J., and D. E. HOLBROOK and COOK *, JJ.
Defendant was charged with breaking and entering an unoccupied building with intent to commit larceny, contrary to M.C.L. § [87 MICHAPP 414] 750.110; M.S.A. § 28.305. On March 21, 1977, the date set for trial, defense counsel orally moved for a competency examination, pursuant to M.C.L. § 330.2026; M.S.A. § 14.800(1026). The trial court had discussed this matter with counsel earlier and had been able to schedule a competency examination in the Recorder's Court Psychiatric Clinic for that morning; the case was adjourned until 2 p. m., at which time a competency hearing would be held. It was agreed that if defendant were found competent to stand trial, a jury would be impanelled immediately following the afternoon hearing.
The only witness to testify at the subsequent competency hearing was a Recorder's Court Clinic psychologist, Theresa Gillis. Miss Gillis testified that she had earned a master's degree in psychology and that she had 13 years of experience at the above clinic. Defense counsel chose not to voir dire Miss Gillis further with respect to her qualifications and agreed that they were "acceptable". Miss Gillis testified that she considered the defendant competent to stand trial. On cross-examination, she related the procedure whereby her office had arrived at this conclusion.
Miss Gillis then went on to explain the procedure in greater detail. Defense counsel offered no evidence or argument to rebut the clinic's conclusion.
[87 MICHAPP 415] On the basis of Miss Gillis' testimony, the court found the defendant competent to stand trial, and a jury was impanelled. Voluminous testimonial evidence was taken associating the defendant with the alleged offense. An eyewitness account was offered of defendant's entry into the subject building. The arresting officers testified to their apprehension of defendant inside the building. Mr. Silk, owner of the delicatessen wherein the defendant was arrested, identified several articles taken from defendant's pockets as his. During cross-examination of Mr. Silk, defense counsel utilized Silk's testimony at the preliminary examination in an effort to impeach him.
Testifying on his own behalf against the advice of counsel, defendant offered an entirely different account of the circumstances of his arrest and denied making incriminating statements to police. In rebuttal, the officer in charge of the case recounted verbatim several incriminating statements made by the defendant.
During his final argument, the prosecutor read complainant Silk's preliminary examination testimony verbatim to the jury. Defense counsel did not object, however, and so no consideration was given to the potential efficacy of a curative instruction. On March 23, 1977, defendant was found guilty as charged. On March 31, 1977, he was sentenced to from 5 to 10 years in prison and now appeals of right.
The defendant contends the court below erred in the following respects: first, that it was reversible error for the court to rest its finding of competency upon the testimony of a psychologist; next, that the Recorder's Court Clinic's failure to submit a written report constituted reversible error; finally, that the prosecutor's action in reading from the [87 MICHAPP 416] preliminary examination transcript also constituted reversible error.
This Court has discussed on several previous occasions those credentials which the law deems necessary to qualify one to give expert psychiatric testimony. In People v. Parney, 74 Mich.App. 173, 253 N.W.2d 698 (1977), the defendant was originally evaluated and found competent to stand trial by a psychiatrist. Three months later, in preparation for the defendant's trial on new charges, he was evaluated by a forensic social worker with a master's degree in social work. The expert had several years experience as a social worker, but only limited experience in forensic psychiatry. She found defendant competent to stand trial once again, however this conclusion was challenged on appeal.
The reviewing Court found no evidence, "(o)ther than the fact of her (very limited) employment with the Forensic Center" that the social worker was equipped to determine defendant's competence to stand trial. 74 Mich.App. at 179, 253 N.W.2d at 701. Said the Court: "her recorded background is bereft of any indication that she is experienced in the application of psychiatric knowledge to the processes of law". 74 Mich.App. at 180, 253 N.W.2d at 701. Furthermore, the Court concluded that "(t)he statutory procedures which become operative after a defendant is found incompetent to stand trial also suggest that assessments of competence are to be performed only by qualified Medical experts". (Emphasis in original.) 74 Mich.App. at 182, 253 N.W.2d at 702.
In the recent case of People v. Walker, 84 Mich.App. 700, 270 N.W.2d 498 (1978), the substantive testimony at defendant's competency hearing was once again provided by a social worker. In this case, however, the social worker's testimony merely provided a foundation for the admission of [87 MICHAPP 417] a report coauthored by the witness and a psychiatrist. Defense counsel did not object to the expert's qualifications. The reviewing Court pointed out three separate factors which it considered distinguished Walker from the holding of reversible error in Parney. First and foremost among these reasons, the Court noted that unlike the situation in Parney, where no timely psychiatric evidence was offered, in Walker the defendant "did receive a psychiatric examination and the report was cosigned by the social worker and the psychiatrist". (Emphasis omitted.) 84 Mich.App. at 703, 270 N.W.2d at 499. Also, the Court felt that the "social worker's testimony was not as substantive as that of the social worker in Parney ". 84 Mich.App. at 703, 270 N.W.2d at 499. Finally, the Court found it relevant that the defendant failed to object to the proffered testimony. The defendant's conviction was affirmed.
While Parney and Walker dealt with the admission of a social worker's testimony as expert testimony, the earlier case of People v. Crawford, 66 Mich.App. 581, 239 N.W.2d 670 (1976), confronted the same problem faced by this Court: admission of expert testimony by a psychologist. In Crawford, the Court first rejected the defendant's contention that only a psychiatrist was qualified to evaluate the defendant or to offer testimony with respect to competency. It held that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Blue
...contends in this case that lack of strict compliance with statutory procedures was harmless error, citing by analogy People v. James, 87 Mich.App. 412, 274 N.W.2d 801 (1978). In James, the trial court's finding of trial competency was made with the benefit of the testimony of a psychologist......