People v. Martin, Docket No. 6233

• Decision Date: 28 September 1970
• Docket Number: Docket No. 6233,No. 1,1
• Citation: 26 Mich.App. 467,182 N.W.2d 741
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sammy E. MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 741

182 N.W.2d 741

26 Mich.App. 467

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sammy E. MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 6233.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 1.

Sept. 28, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 25, 1970.

Released for Publication Jan. 19, 1971.

Harry N. Grossman, Detroit, Neil H. Fink, Detroit, of counsel, for defendant-appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Div., Robert A. Reuther, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before FITZGERALD, P.J., and GILLIS and O'HARA ^*, JJ.

FITZGERALD, Presiding Judge.

Sammy E. Martin, defendant in the present case, was tried and convicted of murder in the second degree and sentenced to serve 20 to 30 years in prison. The facts surrounding the commission of the crime are not disputed, for defendant concedes that he shot the victim on January 6, 1968, and that she died as a result thereof. At trial, defendant filed a notice of intention to claim insanity as a defense, stating that testimony would be introduced to establish his insanity at the time the offense was committed.

Shortly thereafter, and in response to the notice, the people petitioned the court to appoint a psychiatrist to examine defendant. A hearing was had and despite objections, the motion was granted and two psychiatrists were appointed. Subsequently, during the course of the trial, testimony elicited from the psychiatrists indicated that defendant was sane at the time of the commission of the crime. Defendant now appeals the conviction.

The alleged error which is presented concerns the decision of the trial court to order a psychiatric examination of defendant on motion of the people and in subsequently permitting the psychiatrists to testify at trial. Defendant argues that in the absence of statutory mandate, the court had no inherent right to order the examination. He contends that under the circumstances, the examination violated his Fifth Amendment rights and therefore the expert testimony should have been prohibited.

The issue with which we are faced on this appeal was recently discussed and decided by this Court in People v. Early (1970), 25 Mich.App. 363, 181 N.W.2d 586. However, the facts of the Early decision and those of the case at hand are distinguishable at least to the extent that Early is silent as regards actually directing the defendant to submit to the court-ordered interview. It is in light of this that we shall endeavor to elaborate so the issue may be laid to rest.

Prior to this Court's recent ruling, and despite the fact that Michigan did have a statute governing psychiatric examinations when competency to stand trial was at issue, ¹ no provision was made to aid the prosecution where insanity was claimed to exist at the time of the commission of the crime. Many states have enacted legislation which provides for the psychiatric examination in both instances. Those jurisdictions which are lacking express statutory authorization are split in their determination of the issue. ² However, the majority appear to recognize the inherent right of a court to order a psychiatric examination when an accused files notice of insanity. It is uniformly held within these states that such an examination does not Per se violate the Fifth Amendment rights of the accused.

A review of the applicable cases from other jurisdiction discloses State v. Mulrine (1962), 5 Storey 65, 55 Del. 65, 183 A.2d 831, which was decided by the Delaware Supreme Court. In its opinion, the Court did not specifically address itself to the constitutional issue of directing the defendant to actively participate in an examination, but it did hold that the lower court possessed an inherent right to order a psychiatric examination even in the absence of statutory authority. The basis of this decision appears to lie in the apparent absurdity of allowing psychiatric examination and testimony on defendant's behalf once the defense of insanity is raised, while depriving the people of the same opportunities through their own experts.

The case of State v. Phillips (1967), 245 Or. 466, 422 P.2d 670 goes one step further by addressing itself to a consideration of the possible Fifth Amendment infringements in directing a defendant who pleads not guilty by reason of insanity to submit to a psychiatric examination. In ruling that there was no constitutional violation, the Court, quoting at length from State v. Grayson (1954), 239 N.C. 453, 80 S.E.2d 387, reasoned:

"The constitutional privilege against self-crimination in history and principle seems to relate to protecting the accused from the process of extracting from his own lips against his will an admission of guilt, and in better reasoned cases it does not extend to the exclusion of his body or of his mental condition as evidence when such evidence is relevant and material, even when such evidence is obtained by compulsion.' * * *

'If the rule were otherwise there would be no way for the state to rebut a plea of insanity after the defendant had put his mental condition in question by such a plea. No error was committed in allowing the defendant to be examined by the state's psychiatrist nor in permitting him to testify as to his opinion of defendant's mental condition at the time of the crime.'

Similarly, in United States v. Albright (C.A.4, 1968), 388 F.2d 719, the Court found that United States District Courts have the inherent power to order such examinations. The Court further held that compelling a defendant to submit to an examination in an appropriate case does not Per se violate his rights against self-incrimination. See Alexander v. United States (C.A.8, 1967), 380 F.2d 33, and Pope v. United States (C.A.8, 1967), 372 F.2d 710.

The Albright decision also endeavored to elaborate the purposes of the examination and to establish criteria for protecting the rights of the accused.

'The manifest purpose of the examination in this case was, and the proper objective of a mental examination in any criminal case where a defendant's sanity is in issue should be, to obtain knowledge not about facts concerning defendant's participation in...