Ricks, Matter of
| Citation | 421 N.W.2d 667,167 Mich.App. 285 |
| Decision Date | 19 April 1988 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 91550 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Steven RICKS, a minor. PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Steven RICKS, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan (US) |
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., John D. O'Hair, Pros. Atty., Timothy A. Baughman, Chief of the Criminal Div. Research, Training and Appeals, and Larry L. Roberts, Asst. Pros. Atty., for petitioner-appellee.
Juvenile Defender Office by William E. Ladd, Detroit, for respondent-appellant.
Before MacKENZIE, P.J., and KELLY and BORRELLO, * JJ.
On July 31, 1985, petitioner filed a petition in the probate court alleging that respondent committed an act the nature of which constituted the felony of assault with intent to commit murder, M.C.L. Sec. 750.83; M.S.A. Sec. 28.278. The petition requested the court to take jurisdiction of respondent, apparently pursuant to M.C.L. Sec. 712A.2(a)(1); M.S.A. Sec. 27.3178(598.2)(a)(1), which provides:
At the time the petition was filed, respondent was sixteen years old. He was detained at the Wayne County Youth Home following the alleged assault.
When the petition was authorized, both petitioner and respondent's counsel requested a psychological evaluation of respondent. The juvenile court referee recommended ordering such an evaluation to be performed by the Wayne County Clinic for Child Study. On August 15, 1985, respondent's attorney filed a notice of insanity defense, accompanied by a request that respondent be referred to the Center for Forensic Psychiatry for evaluation. The presiding judge denied the request for evaluation at the adult forensic center, but ordered evaluation by the Clinic for Child Study. Additionally, respondent was granted his request for an independent psychiatric forensic evaluation.
An adjudicatory hearing was conducted on September 24, October 9, and October 10, 1985. Following petitioner's case-in-chief, respondent presented the expert testimony of clinical psychologist Dr. William Nixon, who conducted the independent evaluation of respondent. He testified that respondent suffered from a paranoia disorder and that this disorder fell within the legal definition of mental illness. Further, in Nixon's opinion, at the time of the assault respondent was unable to resist his homicidal impulse and was unable to see the wrongfulness of his action. Clinic for Child Study psychologist Dr. Charles Rooney testified as petitioner's rebuttal expert witness. According to Rooney, respondent suffered from a schizoid personality disorder but was able to differentiate between right and wrong.
On October 15, 1985, the juvenile court referee found that respondent, while suffering from mental illness, was not insane. The referee then found respondent guilty but mentally ill and ruled that he came within the provisions of the juvenile code. Disposition immediately followed. Respondent was committed to Boys Training School, which would "attempt to work with this young man for purposes of getting him medication, as well as any type of therapy that could be brought in from Hawthorne [sic] Center by a therapist."
Respondent filed a petition for review on October 21, 1985. Judge Gladys Barsamian denied the petition on February 19, 1986. Responding to several issues raised by respondent, Judge Barsamian ruled that: (1) the court did not err in failing to follow M.C.L. Sec. 768.20a; M.S.A. Sec. 28.1043(1), governing procedure when an insanity defense is raised, inter alia because the insanity defense does not apply in juvenile cases; (2) the guilty but mentally ill verdict, M.C.L. Sec. 768.36; M.S.A. Sec. 28.1059, does not apply in juvenile cases, but the referee did not intend respondent to come within that statute; and (3) the referee had adequate information upon which to make his dispositional decision. Respondent now appeals from each of these determinations as of right. We affirm.
Respondent contends that Judge Barsamian erred in concluding that the insanity defense is inapplicable to juvenile proceedings. We find it unnecessary to address the issue on these facts. If, as respondent maintains, the defense is available in juvenile court, there was no error at the adjudicatory proceeding. Respondent presented evidence regarding his sanity, argued the question, and received a ruling. We agree with the referee and the presiding judge that the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of respondent's legal sanity. The evidence of respondent's actions both before and immediately after the assault strongly suggested that he was able to conform his conduct to the law and that he appreciated the wrongfulness of his actions. If, on the other hand, Judge Barsamian correctly concluded that the insanity defense has no application in juvenile proceedings, reversal still would not be warranted. Judge Barsamian's ruling did not deny respondent due process. As respondent's counsel stated more than once at the February 19 hearing, the essence of respondent's theory of the case was that he lacked the requisite intent to commit the charged offense. Obviously one need not raise the question of sanity in order to claim lack of evidence of intent. Here, respondent offered his theory and it was rejected. Judge Barsamian's ruling did not deprive respondent of his theory.
Assuming, arguendo, that the insanity defense applies in juvenile proceedings, respondent argues that under M.C.L. Sec. 768.20a; M.S.A. Sec. 28.1043(1) the probate court erred in ordering his evaluation at the Wayne County Clinic for Child Study rather than the Center for Forensic Psychiatry. Respondent cites no cases and we have found none directly on point. Analogous to the instant case, however, is People v. Lucas, 393 Mich. 522, 528, 227 N.W.2d 763 (1975). In Lucas, the Court fashioned a remedy for when the trial court fails to comply with procedural requisites surrounding the determination of competency to stand trial. Id. at 527, 227 N.W.2d 763. The Court stated:
Lucas, supra, p. 528, 227 N.W.2d 763. (Emphasis added.)
Here, respondent's rights were not violated by the decision to have the Clinic for Child Study perform an evaluation. As Judge Barsamian noted, respondent needed mental health treatment as soon as possible, not the delay of many months which would result from referral to the Center for Forensic Psychiatry. Moreover, the Center for Forensic Psychiatry is an adult facility; both the juvenile code and the court rules governing the juvenile division of the probate court contemplate that juvenile detainees will not be exposed to adult detainees. Finally, while there may exist a difference of opinion as to whether the Clinic for Child Study was better equipped to evaluate respondent, that difference of opinion does not amount to a violation of rights. There was no error.
Again assuming, arguendo, that the insanity defense and the procedures set forth at M.C.L. Sec. 768.20a; M.S.A. Sec. 28.1043(1) apply to juvenile proceedings, respondent further argues that the court erred in permitting Dr. Rooney to testify as an expert on the issue of criminal responsibility. We disagree. In People v. Hawthorne, 293 Mich. 15, 291 N.W. 205 (1940), five justices agreed that psychologists are included among those competent to testify on the issue of sanity. Accord: People v. Drossart, 99 Mich.App. 66, 297 N.W.2d 863 (1980), lv. den. 410 Mich. 892 (1981). People v. Hardesty, 139 Mich.App. 124, 362 N.W.2d 787 (1984), lv. den. 424 Mich. 878 (1986), app. dis. 477 U.S. 902, 106 S.Ct. 3269, 91 L.Ed.2d 560 (1986), upon which respondent relies, dealt with the qualifications of a particular psychologist and cannot be read as disqualifying all clinical psychologists as experts on the issue of sanity.
Whether witnesses are sufficiently qualified to render expert opinions rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, and that court's decisions will be reversed only for an abuse of discretion. People v. Beckley, 161 Mich.App. 120, 124-125, 409 N.W.2d 759 (1987), citing People v. Barr, 156 Mich.App. 450, 402 N.W.2d 489 (1986). In the instant case, Dr. Rooney testified that he is a licensed psychologist, that he has been employed at the Clinic for Child Study since 1980, that he has evaluated approximately 250 young men "for [the] purpose of psychiatric evaluation" and has testified in court forty to fifty times regarding evaluation of youngsters who appear in juvenile court, and that he was a professor of psychology at Wayne State University from 1973 to 1979. Although this was his first examination on criminal responsibility, Dr. Rooney was aware of the requirements of the law and had considered the reports and evaluations of three psychiatrists, Dr. Harold Wright of Hawthorn Center, Dr. Dexter Fields of Northland Clinic, and Dr. Barry Miller, when evaluating respondent. As Judge Barsamian noted, the Clinic for Child Study specializes in dealing with children in contrast to the Center for Forensic Psychiatry which deals with adults. Moreover, as Judge Barsamian noted, respondent is hardly in the position to challenge petitioner's expert...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Carey
...615 N.W.2d 742241 Mich. App. 222In the Matter of David Anthony CAREY, Minor ... People of the State of Michigan, Petitioner-Appellee, ... David Anthony Carey, Respondent-Appellant ... Docket ... 2. In concluding that the issue of competency was not relevant, the trial court cited In re Ricks, 167 Mich.App. 285, 421 N.W.2d 667 (1988). In Ricks, this Court did not reach the issue whether the insanity defense was available at the ... ...