Court Opinion

ID: 9742040
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:05:40.877085+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:27.986934
License: Public Domain

Michael J. Kelly, P.J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I agree with the majority opinion with regard to the fact that defendant’s sentence violates People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630; 461 NW2d 1 (1990). I also agree with my colleagues that the trial court was required by statute to define mental illness and legal insanity before taking expert testimony on the insanity defense. MCL 330.1400a; MSA 14.800(400a); MCL 768.21a; MSA 28.1044(1). However, I disagree with the majority’s harmless error analysis. I would *598follow this Court’s decision in People v Mikulin, 84 Mich App 705; 270 NW2d 500 (1978).
In Mikulin, this Court held that failure of the trial court to instruct concerning the question of insanity before taking expert testimony regarding the subject is error requiring reversal even without a request for such instruction. Here, the trial court failed to define mental illness and legal insanity before the experts’ testimony was taken. Under the facts of this case, I cannot conclude that this error was harmless. This trial involved a "battle of the experts.” Defendant’s mental state was the only issue. Apparently, during deliberation the jury wanted a transcript of the testimony of defendant’s expert witness. Within forty-five minutes of being told a transcript was unavailable, the jury returned its verdict. Under these circumstances, I cannot conclude that the trial court’s failure to instruct concerning the question of insanity before taking expert testimony regarding the subject did not result in prejudice to defendant.
I would reverse.