Court Opinion

ID: 9741582
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:58:33.995311+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:24.845618
License: Public Domain

Kelly, J.
(dissenting). I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that defendant was afforded effective assistance of counsel in this case. In accord with the Court of Appeals decision, I believe that trial counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that his failure prejudiced defendant. Therefore, I would affirm the Court of Appeals reversal and grant defendant a new trial.
*452DEFENSE TRIAL COUNSEL’S INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE
Trial counsel’s performance was ineffective in that he (1) failed to obtain pertinent medical records regarding defendant’s mental state, (2) failed to properly inform Dr. O’Reilly of the definitions of insanity and mental illness, and (3) failed to properly inform himself regarding the pursuit of an insanity defense.
Counsel learned from Dr. Norris’ report of the existence of Community Mental Health records, Port Huron Hospital records, and county jail records showing defendant’s mental state during the months immediately before and after the shooting. However, he never examined them before trial, either for use in cross-examination or for background to enable Dr. O’Reilly to adequately evaluate defendant and prepare her testimony for trial.
Effective assistance of counsel includes the duty to prepare, investigate, and present all substantial defenses. People v Kelly, 186 Mich App 524, 526; 465 NW2d 569 (1990); People v Lewis, 64 Mich App 175, 183-184; 235 NW2d 100 (1975). As has been aptly stated by the United States Supreme Court, “counsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary.” Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668, 691; 104 S Ct 2052; 80 L Ed 2d 674 (1984). I would hold that defense counsel at trial in the instant case failed in this duty.
When asked why he neglected to examine defendant’s mental health records before trial, counsel said: “[I n]ever won a case by cross-examination of the other side’s expert.” I find this unconvincing. One might be justified in making an informed decision not *453to extensively cross-examine an expert after careful review of the expert’s proposed testimony and the facts underlying the expert’s opinion. But, counsel is not effective who omits to cross-examine an expert because of ignorance of pertinent records on which the expert relied.
Defense counsel’s failure to obtain defendant’s medical records also led to the inadequate preparation of Dr. O’Reilly. Counsel neither furnished Dr. O’Reilly with defendant’s records before she diagnosed him, nor did he inform her of their existence. She has indicated that, had she been made familiar with defendant’s mental history, she would have approached her clinical assessment of defendant’s mental state differently. Also, after reviewing the records, she found that they do support a finding that defendant was suffering from a mental illness at the time of the shooting. Presumably, her testimony to the jury would have bolstered a defense of guilty but mentally ill or not guilty by reason of insanity.
Defense counsel also failed to provide Dr. O’Reilly with basic information regarding Michigan’s criteria for insanity, mental illness, diminished capacity, and a possible defense of guilty but mentally ill. As noted by appellate counsel, this was Dr. O’Reilly’s first experience as an expert witness during a trial. Counsel’s guidance regarding the legal aspects of Dr. O’Reilly’s findings was inadequate under the circumstances.
THE PREJUDICE TO DEFENDANT
Defense counsel was also ineffective in failing to acquaint himself with the subtle but distinctive differences in the defenses of diminished capacity, insanity, and guilty but mentally ill. He indicated that, in his *454professional opinion, it was not a wise strategy to raise an insanity defense. In fact, the record indicates that he was unfamiliar with the defense. By counsel’s own admission, this was at most his third referral to the forensic center and the first case in which he actually presented a mental illness defense at trial. Defense counsel admitted that he had not formally consulted with an attorney more experienced in this defense. This failure weakened defendant’s chances for a more favorable verdict.
The Court of Appeals correctly noted that defense counsel did not adequately present the defense of diminished capacity. Dr. O’Reilly’s testimony, while supposedly offered to establish a diminished capacity defense, actually indicated that defendant did not suffer from diminished capacity. Dr. O’Reilly testified that defendant could take specifically intended actions, but that his ability to make choices was adversely affected when his sense of danger was triggered. This testimony directly rebuts the defense of diminished capacity, which requires proof that a defendant lacked the specific intent necessary for conviction of first-degree murder. People v Denton, 138 Mich App 568, 571; 360 NW2d 245 (1984). However, the testimony supports an insanity defense or a finding of mental illness. Defense counsel should have been prepared to fully explore the delicate nuances of this area of the law during direct examination of Dr. O’Reilly. The examination could have led, in turn, to a verdict of guilty but mentally ill or not guilty by reason of insanity.
I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that counsel’s ineffectiveness was not prejudicial to defendant. Defendant might have been acquitted. Even a verdict *455of guilty but mentally ill would have been more favorable, under the circumstances.
I differ with the majority that defense counsel’s failure to obtain a verdict of guilty but mentally ill “scarcely constitute[s] prejudice to the defendant.” Ante at 451. While in truth, in either case, defendant would be subject to incarceration for life, at least one other consequence of a mentally ill guilty verdict is significant to defendant. MCL 768.36(3); MSA 28.1059(3) mandates that a prisoner adjudged guilty but mentally ill must be evaluated and be given such treatment as is psychiatrically indicated. No such mandate exists for one found guilty of first-degree murder, however mentally tortured he may be. As we stated in People v Booth, 414 Mich 343, 353-354; 324 NW2d 741 (1982):
The Legislature’s intent in establishing a [guilty but mentally ill] verdict which might be returned by a jury presented with an insanity defense . . . appears to have been twofold: (1) to ensure that criminally responsible but mentally ill defendants obtain professional treatment in “the humane hope of restoring their mental health” while incarcerated or on probation, and, correlatively, (2) to assure the public that a criminally responsible and mentally ill defendant will not be returned to the streets to unleash further violence without having received necessary psychiatric care after sentencing. [Citations omitted.]
While defendant in the instant case would not be eligible for parole if found guilty but mentally ill, he would have the benefit of psychiatric treatment during his prison years.
Cavanagh, J., concurred with Kelly, J.