Opinion ID: 1938332
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Present Mental Illness

Text: We note at the outset that it is our duty to presume the constitutionality of a statute and construe it as constitutional unless the contrary clearly appears. People v McQuillan, 392 Mich 511, 536; 221 NW2d 569 (1974); Sullivan v Michigan State Board of Dentistry, 268 Mich 427, 429-430; 256 NW 471 (1934). It is evident from a reading of the probation provision, in the context of the entire statute, that the mental illness of defendants sentenced under it is the basis for the specific statutory directive for a five-year period of probation. Concededly this provision does not explicitly require an inquiry into a defendant's mental health at the time of sentencing. However, we find that it obviously contemplates such an inquiry and implicitly requires one. This statutory provision specifically requires the sentencing judge who places on probation a defendant who has been found guilty but mentally ill to make treatment a condition of probation upon the recommendation of the Center for Forensic Psychiatry. Practically speaking, no such recommendation could be made until the center has been afforded the opportunity to evaluate the defendant's mental health and to determine the need for treatment, if any. Conversely, the sentencing court could not determine that treatment need not be a condition of probation until after it has considered all relevant factors, including the defendant's mental health. Consequently, we hold that this statute requires a sentencing court to obtain a report from the Center for Forensic Psychiatry evaluating a defendant's present mental health prior to sentencing a defendant found guilty but mentally ill.