Case Name: PEOPLE v. WALKER
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1975-10-27
Citations: 65 Mich. App. 207
Docket Number: Docket No. 17495
Parties: PEOPLE v WALKER
Judges: Before: Lesinski, C. J., and V. J. Brennan and D. F. Walsh, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 65
Pages: 207–215

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v WALKER
Opinion op the Court
1. Criminal Law — Insanity Defense — Notice—Discretion.
A trial court abused its discretion by not allowing an adjournment so that the defendant could give the required four-day notice of an insanity defense where counsel was the defendant’s third appointed counsel and was only able to meet briefly with the defendant before representing him at the trial, insanity was claimed to be the defendant’s only possible defense, the insanity defense was raised on the first day of trial, and the defendant previously had been found incompetent to stand trial.
2. Criminal Law — Competence to Stand Trial — Competence Hearing — Waiver.
A defendant who may be incompetent to stand trial cannot knowingly and intelligently waive his right to have the court determine his competency.
3. Criminal Law — Competence Hearing — Witnesses—Waiver—Assistance of Counsel.
A defendant who is represented by counsel may waive the presence of the examining psychiatrist at a competency hearing and consent to the admission of the report of the Center for Forensic Psychiatry as evidence at the hearing.
4. Criminal Law — Competence Hearing — Witnesses—Waiver— Statutes.
A competency hearing satisfied the requirements of the applicable statute where the defendant was represented by counsel, a detailed report of the findings of the Center for Forensic Psychiatry was made to the court which concluded that the defendant was competent to stand trial, after defense counsel had an opportunity to evaluate the report, the defendant waived his right to have the examining psychiatrist appear and waived his right to call witnesses to give rebuttal testimony, the court thereupon considered the report, and determined that the defendant was competent to stand trial (MCLA 767.27a).
References for Points in Headnotes
[1-9] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law §§ 54, 62, 63, 72.
Investigation of present sanity to determine whether accused should be put, or continue, on trial. 142 ALR 961.
Concurrence in Part, Dissent in Part by Lesinski, C. J.
5. Criminal Law — Competence to Stand Trial — Due Process.
Due process is offended by the trial of a defendant who is unable to understand or assist in the proceedings against him, for the prohibition against trying an incompetent defendant is fundamental to an adversary system of justice.
6. Criminal Law — Competence to Stand Trial — Competence Hearing — Evidence.
A Department of Mental Health opinion that a defendant was competent to stand trial is only evidence to be considered in a judicial determination of competency, not a substitute for the statutorily required judicial hearing.
7. Criminal Law — Competence Hearing — Waiver.
A signed waiver of a defendant’s right to have the court determine his competency to stand trial must be viewed as meaningless; a trial court’s failure to hold a hearing to determine a defendant’s competency was reversible error even though the defendant signed a "waiver of competency form”.
8. Criminal Law — Insanity Defense — Notice—Discretion—Statutes.
A trial court was given discretion by statute to exclude evidence of a defendant’s insanity where the statutorily required four-day notice of an insanity defense had not been given to the prosecutor in cases in which the arraignment occurred before May 1, 1974 (MCLA 768.20, 768.21).
9. Criminal Law — Insanity Defense — Notice—Abuse of Discretion.
Refusal to allow a defendant to raise his insanity defense after an appropriate adjournment was an abuse of discretion serious enough to be deemed reversible error where the defendant had been found incompetent less than a year before his trial and had not yet been ruled competent to stand trial, defendant had told all three of his attorneys that his only defense was insanity and this was known by the trial judge, and prejudice to the prosecutor would have been very insigniñcant since defense counsel had requested a continuance to give the prosecutor at least a four-day notice of the insanity defense.
Appeal from Recorder’s Court of Detroit, John Patrick O’Brien, J.
Submitted March 10, 1975, at Detroit.
(Docket No. 17495.)
Decided October 27, 1975.
Leave to appeal denied, 396 Mich 817.
Willie E. Walker was convicted of unarmed robbery. Defendant appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Cahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Patricia J. Boyle, Principal Attorney, Research, Training and Appeals, and John C Mouradian, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Theodore B. Sallen (Carl Ziemba, of counsel), for defendant on appeal.
Before: Lesinski, C. J., and V. J. Brennan and D. F. Walsh, JJ.

Opinion:
D. F. Walsh, J.
I agree with Judge Lesinski that the defendant's conviction must be reversed on the grounds that the trial court abused its discretion in not allowing an adjournment so that the prosecution could be given the formerly required four-day notice of an insanity defense.
However, I disagree with the conclusion that the procedure followed in the trial court relative to the competency hearing was reversibly erroneous.
It is well settled that a defendant who may be incompetent to stand trial cannot knowingly and intelligently waive his right to have the court determine his competency. It is not improper, however, for a defendant who is represented by counsel to waive the presence of the examining psychiatrist at the competency hearing and to consent to the admission of the report of the forensic center as evidence at the hearing. As I read the record, that is what happened in this case.
The pertinent portion of the waiver signed by the defendant reads as follows:
"I, Willie Edward Walker, being the defendant in the above entitled cause, having been arraigned therein on the charge of (1) RA (2) assault W/I and having been referred to the Forensic Center for psychiatric evaluation and written report having been filed by_ and_finding me competent to stand trial, I do hereby in open court voluntarily waive and relinquish my right to a competency hearing at which testimony is taken. " (Emphasis supplied.)
In my judgment this is not a waiver of defendant's right to a competency hearing but a waiver of his right to have the examining psychiatrist appear in court to testify and his right to call his own witnesses to give rebuttal testimony. Supporting this conclusion is the following entry found on the file jacket used in the trial court.
"Dec 1, 1972
Deft waives Doctor's testimony. Court Finds That Defendant is Able to Stand Trial and So Orders .
"Hon Joseph A Gillis" (Emphasis supplied.)
Based on the foregoing I find no improper waiver of competency hearing in this case. The defendant was represented by counsel. He was given a comprehensive psychiatric evaluation by a psychiatrist at the Center for Forensic Psychiatry at the Ionia State Hospital. A detailed report of the center's findings was made to the court. The report concluded that the defendant was competent to stand trial. The defendant's counsel had an opportunity to evaluate the report and apparently decided not to contest the findings and that nothing would be gained by requiring the psychiatrist to appear at the hearing in order to give his testimony in person. Accordingly defendant waived his right to have the doctor appear and his right to call witnesses to give rebuttal testimony. The court thereupon considered the report, which was apparently the only evidence submitted, and determined the defendant to be competent to stand trial.
This hearing satisfies the requirements of the applicable statute. MCLA 767.27a; MSA 28.966(11).
Reversed and remanded.
V. J. Brennan, J., concurred.
Pate v Robinson, 383 US 375; 86 S Ct 836; 15 L Ed 2d 815 (1966), People v Lucas, 47 Mich App 385; 209 NW2d 436 (1973).
The statute makes specific provision that the report of the forensic center shall be admissible in evidence at the competency hearing.
"The certificate and psychiatric report shall be admissible as evidence in the [competency] hearing, but not for any other purpose in the pending criminal proceedings." MCLA 767.27a(6); MSA 28.966(H)(6).