Case Name: PEOPLE v. McGOLDRICK
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1974-03-04
Citations: 51 Mich. App. 578
Docket Number: Docket No. 14725
Parties: PEOPLE v McGOLDRICK
Judges: Before: R. B. Burns, P. J., and Danhof and O’Hara, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 51
Pages: 578–584

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v McGOLDRICK
Opinion op the Court
1. Criminal Law — Mental Competence — Competence Hearing.
Failure to conduct an examination to determine a defendant’s competence to stand trial in a criminal case cannot be corrected by the judge’s statement that he had observed the defendant and found him competent.
2. Criminal Law — Mental Competence — Competence Hearing.
Failure to conduct an examination before trial to determine a defendant’s competence to stand trial in a criminal case can be corrected subsequent to the trial by conducting a competence hearing and if the defendant is found to have been competent at the time of the trial his conviction will be affirmed.
Concurrence in Part, Dissent in Part, by O’Hara, J.
3. Criminal Law — Competence Hearing — Appeal and Error.
A trial court’s finding in a criminal case which required a judicial determination based on a psychiatric evaluation that the court was satisfied that the defendant was competent to stand trial, where the finding was made after the case in chief was presented, was in legal effect what he would have done on remand,' and is not ground for reversal.
4. Criminal Law — Defenses—Insanity—Burden of Proof.
The defense of insanity in a criminal case places the burden on the state to prove the defendant sane beyond all reasonable doubt and the psychiatric expert who examined the defendant as the people’s expert to testify as to his sanity or insanity at the time of the commission of the acts complained of, upon whom the state must rely to fulfill its burden, may testify to those facts upon which he bases his expert opinion, and no error results if some inculpatory matter necessarily comes out during the good faith testimony of the expert as to those facts.
References for Points in Headnotes
[1-4] 41 Am Jur 2d, Incompetent Persons §§ 15-25.
[2] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law §§ 48, 65, 69, 74.
Investigation of present sanity to determine whether accused should be put, or continue, to trial, 142 ALR 961.
Validity and construction of statutes providing for psychiatric examination of accused to determine mental condition, 32 ALR2d 434.
[5] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 527.
5. Criminal Law — Sentences—Evidence.
A judge sitting without a jury in a rape case wherein a charge of assault with intent to commit murder was dismissed before the trial did not commit error because of an alleged consideration of the dismissed charge in his sentence by alluding before imposing sentence to the fact that the defendant had said to the victim after he raped her that he intended to take her life where there was sufficient evidence to support the judge’s remark independent of the dismissed charge.
Appeal from Allegan, Wendell A. Miles, J.
Submitted Division 3 November 9, 1973, at Grand Rapids.
(Docket No. 14725.)
Decided March 4, 1974.
Leave to appeal applied for.
Theodore McGoldrick was convicted of rape. Defendant appeals.
Remanded for a hearing on competence to stand trial with instructions.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, Gary Stewart, Prosecuting Attorney, Peter Antkoviak, II, Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, and Stephen Rastran, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Norris J. Thomas, Jr., Assistant State Appellate Defender, for defendant.
Before: R. B. Burns, P. J., and Danhof and O’Hara, JJ.
Former Supreme Court Justice, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to Const 1963, art 6, § 23 as amended in 1968.

Opinion:
R. B. Burns, P. J.
This case was originally assigned to Judge O'Hara for writing. He has written his opinion, setting forth the facts and issues. We agree with Judge O'Hara and approve his opinion except for the conclusion that the trial judge could correct his failure to conduct a competency examination by merely stating that he had observed the defendant and found him competent.
People v Chase, 38 Mich App 417; 196 NW2d 824 (1972), mandates a hearing by the trial judge to determine the defendant's competency to stand trial upon his return from the Center for Forensic Psychiatry.
People v Lucas, 47 Mich App 385; 209 NW2d 436 (1973), held that the trial court's failure to conduct such a hearing could be corrected subsequent to the trial.
Therefore, the case is remanded to the trial court for the purpose of conducting a competency hearing. If the defendant is found to have been competent to stand trial at the time of the trial, his conviction is affirmed. '
Danhof, J., concurred.