Opinion ID: 837929
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Did the Statute Apply?

Text: As previously indicated, defense counsel sought a court order that would have required the county sheriff to make defendant available to a psychologist for several hours beyond what normal jail visitation policies allowed in order to assist counsel in deciding whether to assert an insanity defense. The trial court held the statute applied such that defendant was not entitled to an independent evaluation until he had filed a notice of intent and had been examined at the forensic center. The Court of Appeals, however, determined that the statute simply did not apply because defense counsel had not proposed an insanity defense. Rather, he was only investigating whether to file a notice of intent. MCL 768.20a(1) provides in pertinent part: If a defendant in a felony case proposes to offer in his or her defense testimony to establish his or her insanity at the time of an alleged offense, the defendant shall file and serve upon the court and the prosecuting attorney a notice in writing of his or her intention.... The Court of Appeals analyzed the issue as follows: According to the plain statutory language, MCL 768.20a comes into play [i]f a defendant in a felony case proposes to offer in his or her defense testimony to establish his or her insanity at the time of an alleged offense.... MCL 768.20a(1) (emphasis added). Of particular relevance in this context, the word propose is defined as to plan; intend, Random House Webster's College Dictionary (1997).... [Emphasis in original.]    We cannot conclude that by requesting an independent psychological evaluation for defendant, defense counsel was propos[ing] to offer ... testimony to establish [defendant's] insanity at the time of an alleged offense.... MCL 768.20a(1). As noted, it was not yet known whether an insanity defense would even be viable, and it would be unreasonable to deduce from counsel's mere request to investigate defendant's mental state that the defense had solidified a plan or intention to raise the insanity defense at trial. [Emphasis added].    MCL 768.20a does not come into play until a defendant definitively proposes to offer in his or her defense testimony to establish his or her insanity.... [ Shahideh, 277 Mich.App. at 115-117, 743 N.W.2d 233 (emphasis added).] Thus, the Court of Appeals majority looked to Random House Webster's College Dictionary's definition of the word propose. That definition provides seven different entries. But the Court of Appeals only cited the fifth entry, which is to plan; intend. The panel did not cite the first definition, to offer for consideration, acceptance, or action, the third definition, to suggest, or the seventh entry, to form or consider a purpose or design. The Court of Appeals also cited the Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged Edition's first definition of the intransitive verb propose, which is to form or declare a plan or intention. But the Court of Appeals did not cite the third entry for the transitive verb form: to offer for consideration, discussion, acceptance, or adoption. As is apparent, the Court of Appeals cited the most narrow definitions and omitted other broader definitions of the word propose. In Feyz v. Mercy Mem. Hosp., 475 Mich. 663, 684 n. 62, 719 N.W.2d 1 (2006), this Court noted that because a word can have many different meanings depending on the context in which it is used, and because dictionaries frequently contain multiple definitions of a given word, ... it is important to determine the most pertinent definition of a word in light of its context. The broader definition of to suggest or consider (combining the third and seventh definitions from Random House Webster's College Dictionary) is inconsistent with the Court of Appeals majority's analysis that a notice of intent must be filed only after a defendant has solidified a plan or definitively intends to offer the insanity defense. Thus, the question is whether the most pertinent definition of propose in MCL 768.20a is the broad to suggest or consider or the more narrow plan or intend used by the Court of Appeals. As explained below, there are several reasons, textual and otherwise, that the most pertinent definition of propose in MCL 768.20a is the broad to suggest or consider. First, the to suggest or consider interpretation is supported by the broader context of the statute. Subsections 4 through 8 contain identical reporting requirements and evidentiary restrictions, regardless of whether an examination is authorized under MCL 768.20a(2) (examination at the forensic center) or (3) (independent evaluation by a clinician of defendant's choice), as is apparent from the repeated references to both the forensic center and the independent examiner in each of those sections. The Legislature had no reason to specifically permit independent evaluations and then subject them to the requirements of subsection 4 (defendant must cooperate), 5 (statements made not admissible regarding any issue other than mental illness or insanity), 6 (written report must be filed by examiner), 7 (prosecutor may file notice of rebuttal of the insanity defense), or 8 (reports filed under subsection 6 may be admitted into evidence upon stipulation of the parties) if it had intended them to be available for investigatory purposes without the requirements of subsections 4 through 8 before the filing of a notice of intent. Second, the broader definition of propose is more consistent with one of the primary purposes of the statute: to protect the integrity of the evidence regarding an insanity defense. Wallace, 160 Mich. App. at 5, 408 N.W.2d 87. In this context, the language must mean to do everything possible to preclude the introduction of gamed insanity evidence or prepping a defendant for a forensic center examination. [20] Under the broad definition of propose, the statute becomes applicable once defense counsel considers whether the accused might have been insane when the crime was committed. This in turn leads to the filing of a notice of intent and a criminal responsibility examination by the forensic center. Having the first mental health examination performed by a neutral expert who is not beholden to the prosecution or the defense, before the defendant has perhaps been instructed on how to work the system, protects the integrity of the evidence regarding insanity. It prevents any taint that might occur if an independent examiner employed by the defense wittingly or unwittingly suggests how a defendant should tell his or her story or describe his or her mental health symptoms to a subsequent evaluator. See, e.g., McGarty v. O'Brien, 188 F.2d 151, 155-156 (C.A.1, 1951). [21] Previous decisions of this Court support the idea that all evaluations should come within the purview of MCL 768.20a. In Carpenter, 464 Mich. at 231, 627 N.W.2d 276, this Court reiterated that there are procedural requirements that must be satisfied before an insanity defense may be raised. Id. Particularly compelling is the description of these requirements: A defendant in a felony case who wishes to interpose an insanity defense[] must serve written notice on the court and the prosecutor not less than thirty days before trial and submit to a court-ordered examination, relating to the claim of insanity, by personnel for the center for forensic psychiatry or other qualified personnel. MCL 768.20a(1) and (2); MSA 28.1043(1)(1) and (2). A defendant or the prosecutor may also obtain independent psychiatric examinations. MCL 768.20a(3); MSA 28.1043(1)(3). [ Toma, 462 Mich. at 292 n. 6, 613 N.W.2d 694 (emphasis added).] The language may also obtain from Toma suggests that the independent evaluation permitted by MCL 768.20a(3) is in addition to, rather than an investigatory prelude to, the forensic center examination required by MCL 768.20a(2). I also note that the Court of Appeals conclusion that the statute does not apply until defense counsel has solidified a plan or definitively intends to raise the insanity defense is contrary to how our criminal justice system actually operates. As previously mentioned, the forensic center evaluates about 3,000 defendants a year for competency and criminal responsibility (i.e., insanity). Yet, the vast majority of examined defendants do not ultimately introduce the insanity defense. [22] Many, if not most, defendants who file a notice of intent pursuant to MCL 768.20a decide not to pursue an insanity defense. Indeed, I question how defense counsel could ever solidify or definitively plan on raising an insanity defense in the absence of an expert opinion, after an examination, that the defendant was insane at the time the crime was committed. [23] Defense attorneys simply do not solidify their plan or definitively decide whether to pursue an insanity defense on their client's behalf until after an expert provides an opinion that the defendant may have been insane at the time the crime was committed. I thus conclude that the statutory term propose includes suggest or consider and, therefore, comes into play by the time a defense attorney decides to have a psychologist or psychiatrist examine his or her client. I am satisfied that this construction is consistent with the fair import of the terms, promotes justice, and effects the objects of the law. MCL 750.2.