Court Opinion

ID: 9693394
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:39:38.470643+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:45.796358
License: Public Domain

R. M. Maher, J.
(dissenting). I dissent because I believe due process requires that expert witnesses at a competency hearing testify in person.
The analysis of what process is due in a particular proceeding considers "the nature of the proceeding and the interests which may be affected by it”. Artibee v Cheboygan Circuit Judge, 397 Mich 54, 56-57; 243 NW2d 248 (1976). The interest that is involved in á competency hearing is fundamental: the right to avoid prosecution while incompetent. See People v Parnay, 74 Mich App 173; 253 *762NW2d 698 (1977). Thus, greater procedural safeguards are in order.
Moreover, where the defendant objects to the admission into evidence of the forensic center’s written report, as in this case, the evidence presented at the hearing consists largely of the expert’s testimony. As a result, the court’s determination of competency rests largely on its evaluation of that expert’s testimony. The court cannot perform this function properly without the witness before it. Telephonic communication does not disclose the demeanor of a witness. It lends itself to misunderstandings and lapses of attention that will interfere with effective direct and cross examination. Finally, a witness testifying over the telephone from his office will not be as impresssed with the seriousness of the occasion as one testifying in court. I suspect this will have subtle but important effects on his testimony.
The trial court cannot vindicate a defendant’s fundamental right to avoid prosecution while incompetent unless the expert witnesses testify in person. Thus, due process requires that the expert witness testify in person at a competency hearing.
I would reverse defendant’s conviction and order a new competency hearing at which the defendant shall be accorded his full due process rights.