People v. Stevens
| Decision Date | 25 February 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 11,11 |
| Citation | 194 N.W.2d 370,386 Mich. 579 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. James STEVENS, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Dept., Luvenia D. Dockett, Asst. Pros. Atty., Detroit, for plaintiff and appellee.
Emmett S. Long, Detroit, for defendant and appellant.
Before the Entire Bench.
Defendant was arraigned on the charges of carnal knowledge of a female person 1 and robbery armed, 2 in July 1964. He stood mute and a not guilty plea was entered. Assigned counsel filed petition for the appointment of a sanity commission under M.C.L.A. 767.27; M.S.A. 28.967. Such sanity commission was appointed, examination made, and upon hearing and report filed, defendant was found to be psychotic and was committed to the Ionia State Hospital until cured or otherwise discharged.
In February 1966, the medical superintendent of Ionia State Hospital certified defendant to be sane and able to stand trial. He was subsequently returned to the Wayne county jail to await further disposition. There he was examined in April 1966 by Dr. Albert J. Wallaert (who was a member of the sanity commission which examined defendant in 1964), and declared able to stand trial.
Counsel for defendant filed notice of defense of insanity and listed the three members of the sanity commission as witnesses.
Defendant waived jury trial, and on February 27, 1967, trial began in Recorder's Court. Dr. Wallaert, as witness for the People, testified at length concerning his interviews with defendant, both in 1964 and 1966. In answer to a question from the court concerning the 1964 examination, he stated that because defendant could not remember the day of the offense, 'we had no alternative but to send him to Ionia'; that in 1964 he was of the opinion defendant was sane and that the commission's report contained the statement: 'Although the validity of his 'illness' was questionable, the patient left a Sanity Commission no alternative but to find him psychotic.' Over objection of defense counsel, Dr. Wallaert testified as to the 1966 examination:
'Well, when he got back from Ionia he states he is better now and that he admits remembering sexually assaulting and robbing the complainant.'
Defendant testified that after joining a therapy group at Ionia State Hospital he 'found out that the only way you can get out is to know something about your case'; that he thereafter admitted knowledge of the crime in an effort to get a staff hearing and be released for trial.
Two doctors from the medical staff of Ionia State Hospital testified as to defendant's instability and the question of his sanity or insanity.
On April 21, 1967, defendant was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction (18 Mich.App. 28, 170 N.W.2d 499). We granted leave to appeal. 384 Mich. 791.
The issue involved here is a narrow one. It is whether a statement made by a defendant in the course of his examination by a court appointed psychiatrist should be admitted into evidence on the issue of defendant's guilt?
It is clear that the testimony of the psychiatrist concerning information given by defendant was of critical importance in this case. At the close of the doctor's testimony, defense counsel moved for directed verdict on the grounds that the People had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the offense had occurred or that defendant was the person committing the offense. The court in denying the motion stated:
'May I say, Mr. Long, that Without the additional testimony of Dr. Wallaert, the Court would have felt that it was not sufficient; however, in this case--was not sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; however, the Court also feels that By the testimony of Dr. Wallaert, this defendant has been sufficiently tied to the case to make a prima facie case; the Motion is denied.' (Emphasis added)
In a recent case, People v. Martin, 386 Mich. 407, 192 N.W.2d 215 (1971), our Court dealt with the issue of court ordered psychiatric examinations. Justice Adams, writing for the Court, held that when a defendant pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity he must submit himself to examination by a court appointed psychiatrist. Justice Adams stated (p. 428, 192 N.W.2d p. 226):
'We adopt the reasoning of the Court in Albright and hold that when a defendant pleads not guilty by reason of insanity, he must submit himself to examination by the People's experts as ordered by the trial court 'to obtain knowledge not about facts concerning defendant's participation in the criminal acts charged, but about facts concerning a defendant which are themselves material to the case'.'
Albright refers to United States v. Albright (C.A. 4, 1968), 388 F.2d 719, which was quoted at length by Justice Adams in Martin, supra, 386 Mich. at pages 427--428, 192 N.W.2d 215. Albright deals with the same issue that is involved in this case. The Court stated in Albright (p. 725):
'Lastly, we comment that the purpose and result of the examination is not 'the cruel, simple expedient of compelling it (incriminating evidence) from his own mouth.' To repeat an earlier statement, the purpose of the examination is not to determine whether a defendant did or did not do the criminal acts charged, but whether he possessed the requisite mental capacity to be criminally responsible therefor, if other proof establishes that he did do them. So limited, we find nothing in the examination, over a defendant's objection, to violate a defendant's privilege against self-incrimination.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Collins v. Auger
...U. S. v. Bohle, 445 F.2d 54, 66-67 (7th Cir., 1971); State v. Evans, 104 Ariz. 434, 454 P.2d 976, 978 (1969); People v. Stevens, 386 Mich. 579, 194 N.W.2d 370, 371-373 (1971); People v. Martin, 26 Mich.App. 467, 182 N.W.2d 741, 743; Williamson v. State, Miss., 330 So.2d 272, 275 (1976); Sta......
-
People v. Brown
...information can be used where the defendant does not raise the insanity defense at trial. Defendant's reliance on People v. Stevens, 386 Mich. 579, 194 N.W.2d 370 (1972), is misplaced. In Stevens the testimony of the psychiatrist was not used either as a prior inconsistent statement or as r......
-
State v. Collins
... ... denied, 404 U.S. 823, 92 S.Ct. 46, 30 L.Ed.2d 50 (1971). See also Breitel, J., concurring in People v. Avant, 33 N.Y.2d 265, 352 N.Y.S.2d 161, 167, 307 N.E.2d 230, 234 (1973); 26 Stan.L.Rev. at 63--65. But see United States v. Davis, 496 F.2d 1026, ... See United States v. Davis, 496 F.2d at 1030--1031; People v. Stevens, 386 Mich. 579, 194 N.W.2d 370, 371--373 ... (1972). The aforesaid objection can, of course, be effectively voiced before trial. See State v ... ...
- People v. Williams