Court Opinion

ID: 9659084
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:31:47.151213+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:03.807020
License: Public Domain

*699Levin, J.
(dissenting). We read § 1028(3) of the Mental Health Code1 as designed to protect the accused’s Michigan and federal constitutional rights providing that no person shall be compelled in a criminal case to be a witness against himself.2
I
The United States Supreme Court has held that statements uttered by a defendant during a competency examination present no Fifth Amendment issue where relied on solely to ensure "that respondent understood the charges against him and was capable of assisting in his defense,” but that the Fifth Amendment privilege is implicated where it is sought to rely on such statements during the guilt or penalty phases of a prosecution.3
The statute provides that a defendant must make himself available for a competency examination and that he may be committed without a hearing if he fails to do so.4 The statute further provides that the examining psychiatrist shall consult with defense counsel who shall make himself available for that purpose.5
Section 1028(3), in providing that the opinion concerning competency to stand trial may not be admitted as evidence for any purpose in a pending criminal proceeding, except on the issue of competency to stand trial, seeks to protect the accused’s right to remain silent and to avoid self-incrimination. This Court has said: "In Michigan, the results *700of competency examinations may not be used at trial as evidence of a defendant’s guilt, obviating Fifth Amendment concerns regarding self-incrimination.”6
II
The third sentence of § 1028(3), permitting information gathered in the course of a competency examination that is of historical value to be utilized in the formulation of an opinion in any "subsequent court ordered evaluation,” refers to a second or subsequent competency examination, not to an examination respecting criminal responsibility.
No court is empowered to order an accused person to submit to an evaluation concerning his criminal responsibility. To be sure, an accused must, if he wishes to offer expert testimony respecting his criminal responsibility, permit the people’s expert witnesses also to examine him, but such an examination is not pursuant to court order. If an accused fails to permit an examination by the people’s expert, the people’s remedy is to seek to bar the accused from offering expert testimony in support of an insanity defense. The remedy is not to seek or obtain a court order directing the defendant to submit to an examination concerning his criminal responsibility.
III
Dobben sought to bar Dr. Halpern from relying on his statements during the course of the competency examination in formulating his opinion concerning Dobben’s criminal responsibility. His motion was denied. While Dobben’s expert witnesses *701may also have relied on Dobben’s statements during the competency examination, it appears that they may have been able to render their opinions independently of Dobben’s statements during the competency examination; they did not testify until the court had ruled adversely to Dobben.
We would remand to the Court of Appeals to determine whether Dobben waived his statutory and Fifth Amendment privileges when his expert witnesses testified concerning his criminal responsibility, possibly in partial reliance on what he said during the course of the competency examination.7
The majority reinstates the defendant’s convictions of guilty but mentally ill, thereby ignoring that there are other issues raised by Dobben on appeal in the Court of Appeals, partially dealt with in its opinion, which require remand for further proceedings in the Court of Appeals.
Cavanagh, C.J., concurred with Levin, J.

 MCL 330.2028(3); MSA 14.800(1028)(3).

 US Const, Am V; Const 1963, art 1, § 17.

 Estelle v Smith, 451 US 454, 462, 465; 101 S Ct 1866; 68 L Ed 2d 359 (1981).

 MCL 330.2026; MSA 14.800(1026).

 MCL 330.2028; MSA 14.800(1028).

 People v Wright, 431 Mich 282, 286; 430 NW2d 133 (1988).

 See People v Garland, 393 Mich 215, 232-233; 224 NW2d 45 (1974).