Court Opinion

ID: 9722273
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:23:02.536904+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:33.326450
License: Public Domain

V. J. Brennan, P.J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent. A fair reading of the whole statutory provision of MCL 768.20a; MSA 28.1043(1) leads me to conclude that this section is intended only to proscribe untimely rebuttal by expert psychiatric examiners. The key words are in reference to the clinical findings of either the personnel of the center for forensic psychiatry or any independent *420"examiner”. In short, this section contemplates the use of expert psychiatric witnesses being used to establish or rebut the issue of defendant’s insanity. Hence, it is stated that timely disclosure be given of the witness "after the report of an independent examiner secured by the prosecution”. It is the unfair surprise which flows from the untimely introduction of expert testimony that is precluded by MCL 768.20a(7); MSA 28.1043(1)(7).
"The purpose of the notice of rebuttal [MCL 768.20a(7); MSA 28.1043(1)(7)] is to give defendant notice that expert witnesses may be called' and to aid the prosecutor in rebutting the defense of insanity. It is not to insure that the whole of the res gestae is produced and to protect the accused against the suppression of testimony favorable to him.” People v Hamm, 100 Mich App 429, 436; 298 NW2d 896 (1980), lv den 411 Mich 888 (1981).
Thus, I am persuaded that this section was not intended to preclude the testimony of a res gestae witness who offered his opinion after having had ample opportunity to observe the behavior and appearance of defendant at the time of his arrest. He wasn’t testifying as an expert but, rather, as to the circumstances surrounding the arrest. MRE 701, People v Alsteens, 49 Mich App 467, 472; 212 NW2d 243 (1973), lv den 391 Mich 826 (1974). Since the officer was an endorsed res gestae witness, the defendant was not unduly surprised or prejudiced by the fact that he testified or by the nature of the testimony. I would affirm the defendant’s conviction of being guilty of the charged offense but mentally ill.
An examination of the record has not indicated error requiring reversal in the other issues raised by defendant.