People v. Smith

• Citation: 64 Mich.App. 263,235 N.W.2d 754
• Decision Date: 11 September 1975
• Docket Number: Docket No. 22036
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Reuben SMITH, Defendant-Appellant. 64 Mich.App. 263, 235 N.W.2d 754
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)

Page 754

235 N.W.2d 754

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Reuben SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 22036.

64 Mich.App. 263, 235 N.W.2d 754

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Sept. 11, 1975.

Released for Publication Dec. 16, 1975.

Kenneth M. Weidaw, III, Grand Rapids, for defendant-appellant.

[64 MICHAPP 264] Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Richard J. Pasarela, Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before McGREGOR, P.J., and D. E. HOLBROOK and KAUFMAN, JJ.

KAUFMAN, Judge.

Defendant was convicted by a Muskegon County Circuit Court jury of armed robbery, M.C.L.A. § 750.529; M.S.A. § 28.797. He was subsequently sentenced to a term of 5 to 20 years and now appeals of right.

The important facts concerning the robbery are not in dispute. In brief, defendant allegedly entered a Muskegon grocery store at approximately 11 p.m. on July 30, 1972. According to the complainant-store-owner[64 MICHAPP 265] George Druckenmiller, defendant, wielding a pistol, confronted him at the back of the store and demanded the money in the cash register. Mr. Druckenmiller attempted to get a shotgun from a bathroom in the rear of the store and the two men suffled. The robber wrestled the shotgun away from Druckenmiller. The robber then made his way to the front of the store, demanded cash and was given approximately $55. He exited with the money but returned briefly with Druckenmiller's shotgun, which he put back inside the store. Prior to trial, defendant had been declared incompetent to stand trial. He was treated for 13 months and released for trial. At trial, defendant's only defense was insanity.

On appeal, defendant raises three claims of error. First, defendant contends that the trial judge's questioning of defendant's sole expert witness Dr. Roger Olive, was improper and denied defendant a fair trial. Dr. Olive, a psychologist who had examined and treated defendant for a 13-month period, testified on direct examination that, at the time of the robbery, defendant was a schizophrenic and:

'It would seem to me that, first of all, Reuben was mentally ill. He had been in a continuing process from relatively early development.

'The second thing is that he broke under stress when having to defend himself from a great deal of harm and danger, and therefore he wasn't fully aware even though he may have known right from wrong at the time the offense was committed- --he wasn't aware of the rightness or wrongness of the act.

'Secondly, in order to defend himself from possible death, and to preserve his life, that he did what he did; and that what he did was irresponsible.'

After the prosecutor had completed cross-examining[64 MICHAPP 266] Dr. Olive, the trial judge asked the questions which defendant challenges on appeal:

'Q. Doctor, you are familiar with Ames Robey?

'A. Yes.

'Q. In fact, he is the medical chief of your--

'A. Not of our facility. His is the Forensic Center, yes.

'Q. Do you know of his testimony in the case of People versus Martin, in which Dr. Robey stated that a schizophrenic could know right from wrong and resist an impulse to commit a crime?

'A. Yes.

'Q. Do you agree with that?

'A. Yes.

'The Court: That is all. You may step down.'

The court was referring to the case of People v. Martin, 386 Mich. 407, 192 N.W.2d 215 (1971), Cert. den., 408 U.S. 929, 92 S.Ct. 2505, 33 L.Ed.2d 342 (1972). In the Martin case, Dr. Robey was one of four expert witnesses at trial. After three psychiatrists had testified that they had examined defendant and had found him to be suffering from a personality disorder, the prosecutor called Dr. Robey as a rebuttal witness. According to the Martin opinion, as the trial court here noted, Dr. Robey testified that 'a schizophrenic Could know right from wrong and resist an impulse to commit a crime'. (Emphasis supplied.) Id. at 412, 192 N.W.2d at 217.

A trial judge has 'great power and wide discretion' in controlling the course of a trial and in exercising control over the conduct of witnesses and attorneys. People v. Cole, 349 Mich. 175, 199, 84 N.W.2d 711 (1957); People v. Gray, 57 Mich.App. 289, 294, 225 N.W.2d 733 (1975). The judge may properly participate in the questioning of witnesses,[64 MICHAPP 267] Id. Such judicial questioning should be designed to 'produce fuller and more exact testimony', Simpson v. Burton, 328 Mich. 557, 564, 44 N.W.2d 178, 181 (1950), and to 'clarify points and elicit additional facts', People v. Davison, 12 Mich.App. 429, 434, 163 N.W.2d 10, 12 (1968). Where a case is being tried before a jury, however, the judge must be especially careful that his questions or comments do not indicate partiality. People v. Young, 364 Mich. 554, 111 N.W.2d 870 (1961). His questions may not be 'intimidating, argumentative, prejudicial, unfair or partial'. People v. Wilder, 383 Mich. 122, 124, 174 N.W.2d 562, 563 (1970). Additionally, 'a judge before whom a jury case is being tried should avoid any invasion of the prosecutor's role'. People v. Cole, supra, 349 Mich. at 196, 84 N.W.2d at 717.

It is not the number of questions asked by the court, but the content of the questions and their possible impact on the jury which is crucial to an appellate review. Appellate courts in this jurisdiction have carefully scrutinized substantial claims of judicial partiality and have not required a specific showing of prejudice where such partiality is demonstrated. A new trial has been ordered where a judge's questions and comments 'may well have unjustifiably aroused suspicion in the mind of the jury' as to a witness' credibility, (emphasis supplied), Simpson v. Burton, supra, 328 Mich. at 563--564, 44 N.W.2d at 181, and where partiality 'quite possibly could have influenced the jury to the detriment of the defendant's case', (emphasis supplied), People v. Roby, 38 Mich.App. 387, 392, 196 N.W.2d 346, 349 (1972). See also People v. Young, supra, 364 Mich. at 559, 111 N.W.2d 870.

We find, in the instant case, that the court's questioning of defendant's expert witness was improper and requires our reversal of defendant's conviction and remand for a new trial. The court's [64 MICHAPP 268] introduction of Dr. Robey's opinion was improper as a matter of fairness to defendant.

We find from a review of the record that the trial court's questioning could have prejudiced defendant's right to a fair trial. Defendant's only defense was insanity. Dr. Olive, the witness whom the court questioned, was defendant's only expert witness. Dr. Olive had just finished over 50 pages of transcript testimony in which he detailed his belief that defendant was a schizophrenic, that the robbery was a psychotic act and that defendant was not aware of the propriety of the act at the time he did it. Although Dr. Olive testified that defendant, in general, might have known right from wrong at the time of the robbery, he stated that defendant did not know whether the act of robbery itself was right or wrong because of defendant's schizophrenic hallucinations. The trial court, in introducing the opinion of Dr. Robey, stressed to the jury only that part of Dr. Olive's testimony which indicated that defendant might have, in general, known right from wrong. As such, the court's questions were of the type that, more properly, should have been asked by the prosecutor.

Dr. Olive's testimony was frequently couched in medical terminology. It is conceivable that the jury could have resolved any confusion over Dr. Olive's testimony by focusing on the extrajudicial opinion of Dr. Robey as stressed by the court. We find it just as conceivable that the jury could have combined this statement with earlier questioning of defendant by the court and viewed the...