Opinion ID: 2227738
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the prejudice to defendant

Text: Defense counsel was also ineffective in failing to acquaint himself with the subtle but distinctive differences in the defenses of diminished capacity, insanity, and guilty but mentally ill. He indicated that, in his professional opinion, it was not a wise strategy to raise an insanity defense. In fact, the record indicates that he was unfamiliar with the defense. By counsel's own admission, this was at most his third referral to the forensic center and the first case in which he actually presented a mental illness defense at trial. Defense counsel admitted that he had not formally consulted with an attorney more experienced in this defense. This failure weakened defendant's chances for a more favorable verdict. The Court of Appeals correctly noted that defense counsel did not adequately present the defense of diminished capacity. Dr. O'Reilly's testimony, while supposedly offered to establish a diminished capacity defense, actually indicated that defendant did not suffer from diminished capacity. Dr. O'Reilly testified that defendant could take specifically intended actions, but that his ability to make choices was adversely affected when his sense of danger was triggered. This testimony directly rebuts the defense of diminished capacity, which requires proof that a defendant lacked the specific intent necessary for conviction of first-degree murder. People v. Denton, 138 Mich.App. 568, 571, 360 N.W.2d 245 (1984). However, the testimony supports an insanity defense or a finding of mental illness. Defense counsel should have been prepared to fully explore the delicate nuances of this area of the law during direct examination of Dr. O'Reilly. The examination could have led, in turn, to a verdict of guilty but mentally ill or not guilty by reason of insanity. I disagree with the majority's conclusion that counsel's ineffectiveness was not prejudicial to defendant. Defendant might have been acquitted. Even a verdict of guilty but mentally ill would have been more favorable, under the circumstances. I differ with the majority that defense counsel's failure to obtain a verdict of guilty but mentally ill scarcely constitute[s] prejudice to the defendant. Op. at 745. While in truth, in either case, defendant would be subject to incarceration for life, at least one other consequence of a mentally ill guilty verdict is significant to defendant. M.C.L. § 768.36(3); MSA 28.1059(3) mandates that a prisoner adjudged guilty but mentally ill must be evaluated and be given such treatment as is psychiatrically indicated. No such mandate exists for one found guilty of first-degree murder, however mentally tortured he may be. As we stated in People v. Booth, 414 Mich. 343, 353-354, 324 N.W.2d 741 (1982): The Legislature's intent in establishing a [guilty but mentally ill] verdict which might be returned by a jury presented with an insanity defense ... appears to have been twofold: (1) to ensure that criminally responsible but mentally ill defendants obtain professional treatment in the humane hope of restoring their mental health while incarcerated or on probation, and, correlatively, (2) to assure the public that a criminally responsible and mentally in defendant will not be returned to the streets to unleash further violence without having received necessary psychiatric care after sentencing. [Citations omitted.] While defendant in the instant case would not be eligible for parole if found guilty but mentally ill, he would have the benefit of psychiatric treatment during his prison years. MICHAEL F. CAVANAGH, J., concurs with MARILYN J. KELLY, J.