Opinion ID: 2041427
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Preliminary Trial Court Investigation Prior to Action Under GCR 1963, 786.4.

Text: As noted in Section II of this opinion, supra, appellant argues that trial courts must have some discretionary authority to make investigations prior to deciding whether Rule 786.4 action, including a show-cause hearing, is in order. Without such power, appellant contends, trial courts often will not have enough information before them to determine whether there has been a showing made within the dictates of MCLA 767.27a(3); MSA 28.966(11)(3) that defendant may be incompetent to stand trial. Appellant concludes: Defendant has rights and should not be summarily committed for diagnostic study unless there are factors indicating this is necessary. The implication is that failure to invest the trial court with preliminary investigatory powers before mandating action under Rule 786.4 will result in needless commitment on many occasions. [6] Without question, appellant raises some good points. However, appellant misconceives the import of the term showing in MCLA 767.27a(3); MSA 28.966(11)(3) which reads in relevant part: (3) Upon a showing that the defendant may be incompetent to stand trial, the court shall commit the defendant   . (Emphasis added.) The showing referred to in the statute is not a preliminary showing that a Rule 786.4 show cause hearing is desirable, the reference is to the ultimate showing of possible incompetency mandating trial court commitment for evaluation. [7] Obviously, what appellant is talking about is not a showing under the statute. What he is talking about is information for the trial court to improve its personal judgment in determining whether to issue a motion sua sponte under Rule 786 to test defendant's competency. What appellant is talking about is what inherent powers of investigation does the trial court possess prior to finding it desirable to initiate action itself under Rule 786.4? We are sympathetic with the trial court's concern. In our meetings with all the circuit judges earlier this year, this problem was constantly raised and much sincere concern shown. This matter concerns this Court too and the matter is under serious study. The critical problem, even though the trial court is animated by a concern not to embarrass the defendant, is what can the trial court do effectively without colliding with the defendant's constitutional rights. In this opinion we have seen that the court cannot informally commit defendant against his will for evaluation. We will not here go into the question of the validity of defendant waiving his rights. In short, most, if not all, avenues of information for the trial court to obtain information about the defendant's competency through the defendant himself are limited to Rule 786 procedures. [8] Whether the trial court has unilateral access to persons other than the defendant to secure information, such as the defendant's family or previously employed psychiatrists is a question not without some difficulties. In short, this whole area is a prickly one that requires very careful and deliberate consideration. [9] This Bench hopes to undertake that with its other partners in Michigan's one court of justice.