Court Opinion

ID: 9732381
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:18:28.591174+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:27.037538
License: Public Domain

Adams, J.
(concurring). I concur with Justice T. M. Kavanagh in the holding that the admission of the testimony of' the lay witnesses as to the question of the insanity of the defendant was error. Instead of restating the rule in such cases, I would reaffirm and apply the rule as stated in People v. Zabijak (1938), 285 Mich 164, 185:
“A nonexpert witness who has had ample means to observe and form conclusions as to the mental condition of a person and who testifies to pertinent facts on which his conclusions are based may state his conclusions as to the insanity of a person.”
• I agree with that portion of his opinion which deals with the second issue on appeal and which holds that “in all criminal trials or retrials taking place after the date of the filing of this opinion, where the defense of insanity is present and that issue is made submissible by the proofs, the defendant, upon his own timely request, or upon request of the jury, shall be entitled to an instruction in accord with the rule of Lyles.”