Court Opinion

ID: 9737539
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:28:07.727903+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:23:59.652676
License: Public Domain

T. G. Kavanagh, P. J.,
(dissenting). In addition to the 3 areas of error indicated in my brothers’ opinion, I find 2 more.
1. Denial of defendant’s motion for the disclosure of the rebuttal witness.
2. Limiting the requested Lyles instruction. [Lyles v. United States (1957), 103 App DC 22 (254 F2d 725).]
*87I cannot subscribe to the evaluation of the 3 errors listed in the majority opinion as “harmless” any more than I could so characterize the 2 indicated above or the sum of them as “non prejudicial.”
I do not think the defendant had a fair trial. I will not comment further on the errors described in my brothers’ opinion beyond saying that I agree they were errors.
The court’s denial of the defense motion for the disclosure of the witness to be called by the state on the question of sanity in my view prevented the defense from properly preparing cross-examination and accordingly was prejudicial error.
I do not share the conviction that permitting the defense psychiatrist to testify as to his opinion of defendant’s sanity cured the error of limiting his examination on that subject to a hypothetical question. The whole purpose of G-CB 1963, 605 is subverted by this device, in my opinion.
But the most glaring error which I perceive is the court’s refusal to give the Lyles instruction.
In People v. Cole (1967), 8 Mich App 250 the trial court refused (as here) to instruct on the effect of CL 1948, § 766.15c (Stat Ann 1954 Bev § 28.933 [3]),* refused to allow defense counsel to state the law in his argument, and refused to answer a direct inquiry on this point by the jury during its deliberations. A majority of our Court’s panel in that case approved. I disagreed there. I disagree here.
I believe a defendant who pleads not guilty by reason of insanity is entitled to have the requested instruction on the statute given to the jury so that the jury will not be moved by fear based on its ignorance of the law, which fear seemed so obvious *88to me in Cole. In Cole we could see the flower. Here we can see the root. Our task, as I perceive it, is to extirpate the noxious weed of ignorance however it appear,
I would reverse and remand for a new trial.

 Repealed by PA 1966, No 266, effective March 10, 1967. Por current provisions see PA 1927, No 175, ch 7, §§ 27a, 27b, as added by PA 1966, No 266 (MOLA §§ 767.27a, 767.27b, Stat Ann 1968 Cum Supp §§ 28.966[11], 28.966[12]).