Opinion ID: 837929
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: required the guilty but mentally ill verdict to be an option every time the insanity defense was raised,[8]

Text: (4) enacted a statute preventing an individual from claiming insanity because he or she was under the influence of voluntarily consumed alcohol or drugs at the time of the alleged offense, MCL 768.21 a, [9] (5) enacted a statute requiring that the jury be instructed regarding the law before trial starts whenever an insanity defense is presented, MCL 768.29a(1), [10] and (6) required that a defendant who wishes to pursue an insanity defense serve written notice on the court and the prosecutor not less than 30 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. Given the vastness of these legislative substantive and procedural changes, one can see why People v. Carpenter, 464 Mich. 223, 237, 627 N.W.2d 276 (2001), concluded that the Legislature had established a comprehensive statutory framework that determines when mental incapacity can serve as a basis for relieving one from criminal responsibility.