People v. Lucas
| Decision Date | 07 April 1975 |
| Docket Number | O,No. 15,15 |
| Citation | 393 Mich. 522,227 N.W.2d 763 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roy LUCAS, Defendant-Appellant. ct. Term 1974. 393 Mich. 522, 227 N.W.2d 763 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
John A. Smietanka, Pros. Atty., Berrien County, by John Jeffrey Long, Asst. Pros. Atty., St. Joseph, for plaintiff-appellee.
State Appellate Defender Office by John B. Phelps, Asst. Defender, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.
Before the Entire Bench.
Defendant timely submits two issues for our review. 1 He first contends that certain prosecutorial comments made during the course of closing argument constitute reversible error. His second contention is that the failure of the trial court to conduct a competency hearing pursuant to M.C.L.A. § 767.27a(4); M.S.A. § 28.966(11)(4) 2 requires reversal of his conviction rather than remand for a Nunc pro tunc competency hearing as ordered by the Court of Appeals.
We affirm defendant's conviction without prejudice to defendant's opportunity to file a delayed motion for new trial claiming incompetency as provided herein.
Defendant was jury-tried and convicted on a charge of breaking and entering. 3 At trial defendant conceded the commission of the breaking and entering but argued his nonparticipation. Proofs indicated that stolen jewelry obtained via an unlawful breaking and entering was placed in the back seat of a car. Stolen jewelry was subsequently found on defendant's person after he fled from the car. One witness, Perry Shearill, whose complicity in the events had already been established by guilty plea, testified that he had picked defendant up in his car After Shearill and another party had accomplished the breaking and entering.
Defendant complains that certain comments made by the prosecuting attorney in final argument constituted impermissible comment on the failure of defendant to take the stand in his own defense. Since proof of most of the elements of the charged offense was conceded and defendant's participation hinged upon circumstantial evidence, final argument concentrated primarily upon witness Shearill's credibility and defendant's possession of stolen jewelry at the time of his arrest. The record reveals that the complained-of remarks, accurately characterized, constituted comment on the weight to be assigned to the testimony of key witness Shearill rather than the alleged impermissible comment. There was no error.
Before trial, defendant's counsel filed a motion for diagnostic commitment to the forensic center and determination of competency. The court ordered commitment and a brief report stating that defendant was competent to stand trial was received. An order adjudicating defendant competent to stand trial was filed before the trial commenced. During a recess in the trial the following colloquy occurred between the trial judge and defense counsel:
'The Court: * * * I think also here this gentleman has been to the Forensic Center?
Mr. Peterson: He has.
The Court: The Forensic Center sent back a report to me, and I have examined it, and they found he was fit to stand trial, and I so found, too. I'd better get that on the record here.'
The judge later added '* * * the court previously found that based on the reports of the Forensic Center that the defendant is competent to stand trial.'
Defendant contends that the above proceedings did not provide the statutory competency hearing required by M.C.L.A. § 767.27a(4); M.S.A. § 28.966(11)(4) 4, and that failure to hold the requisite hearing was reversible error entitling defendant to a new trial. The Court of Appeals agreed with defendant that no formal hearing as required was held but remanded for a Nunc pro tunc competency hearing, stating:
On January 18, 1974 a hearing was held pursuant to the Court of Appeals order of remand. An order finding defendant to have been competent at the time of his trial on October 25, 1972 was filed on April 29, 1974.
The question of substance before us is not whether the requisite statutory 'hearing' was held. We agree, both parties agree, and the Court of Appeals agreed that there was no sufficient statutory hearing on present facts. The question is, what remedy should the law afford a defendant upon trial court failure to comply with the procedural requisites (be they court rule or statutory) surrounding determination of competency to stand trial? In resolving this question we revisit People v. Blocker, 393 Mich. 501, 227 N.W.2d 767 (1975).
In the present case defense counsel timely moved for forensic psychiatric examination to aid in the determination of competency to stand trial. A forensic examination was given defendant. A brief report received from the forensic center recommended that defendant be found competent to stand trial. No formal hearing as required by M.C.L.A. § 767.27a(4); M.S.A. § 28.966(11)(4) was held. Defense counsel neither raised an objection to the lack of formal hearing nor requested that such a hearing be held. 5 There is no evidentiary indication of record that defendant was in fact incompetent to stand trial. Furthermore, no such claim is here being made.
As we said in Blocker, supra, failure to follow a statute or court rule respecting competency determination does not ipso facto entitle a defendant to a new trial. Evidence substantiating incompetency-infact must establish that there is a violation of rights before a new trial will be ordered. Here, as in Blocker, no evidence of incompetence was adduced at trial and no offer of such evidence is now made.
As this juncture, the only way an issue respecting competency can be determined is by a motion for new trial with supporting affidavits or evidence showing substance to the claim that defendant was incompetent at the time of the original trial. If such duly-supported motion is filed, the trial court is obligated to hold a hearing on the motion.
It is our view that this Court should not function in cases such as the present as a never-resolving, ever-revolving door when evidentiary presentation at the trial court level will permit determination of the substantiality of claimed error and avoid the 'playing of the appellate game'. Henceforth it is incumbent upon a defendant claiming error for noncompliance with the statutory, court rule, or constitutional provisions respecting competency to stand trial to present a motion for new trial, or delayed motion for new trial, seeking an evidentiary hearing at the trial court level Before claimed error will be considered upon appeal. 6 In the event evidence of incompetency is shown it will be the obligation of the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether a new trial is required.
The Court of Appeals is reversed and the conviction reinstated without prejudice to defendant's opportunity to file a delayed motion for new trial in accordance with the foregoing.
I concur in the result reached by Justice Fitzgerald's opinion, but I wish to advance a separate rationale. I also find it necessary to distinguish this case from People v. Blocker, 393 Mich. 501, 227 N.W.2d 767 (1975).
The facts of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Abraham
...stand trial because he did not move for a new trial and evidentiary hearing on this basis in the trial court. See People v. Lucas, 393 Mich. 522, 529, 227 N.W.2d 763 (1975); see also generally People v. Connor, 209 Mich.App. 419, 422, 531 N.W.2d 734 (1995). Thus, reversal would be warranted......
-
People v. Oliphant
...the statute and is a denial of defendant's constitutional rights. The case at bar is controlled by our decision in People v. Lucas, 393 Mich. 522, 227 N.W.2d 763 (1975), which involved similar facts. Here defendant was remanded for an evidentiary hearing at the trial court level. After the ......
-
People v. Belanger
...v. Stubbs, 59 Mich.App. 574, 229 N.W.2d 854 (1975). This case is controlled by the recent Supreme Court decision in People v. Lucas, 393 Mich. 522, 227 N.W.2d 763 (1975). As will be mentioned later in this opinion, defendant does not, on this appeal, contend that he was incompetent to stand......
-
Oliphant v. Koehler
...399 Mich. at 500, 250 N.W.2d at 455; People v. Oliphant, supra, 52 Mich.App. at 245-47, 217 N.W.2d at 143-44. See People v. Lucas, 393 Mich. 522, 227 N.W.2d 763 (1975). The requirement of a preliminary hearing is procedural only. Smith v. Peyton, 280 F.Supp. 669 (W.D.Va.1968). The failure t......