Court Opinion

ID: 9574157
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:02:51.206213+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:09.441279
License: Public Domain

Taylor, J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent. Fundamentally, this case involves the construction of a statute that authorizes the payment of expert fees in indigent cases. This statute states:
If any person accused of any crime or misdemeanor, and about to be tried therefor in any court of record in this state, shall make it appear to the satisfaction of the judge presiding over the court wherein such trial is to be had, by his own oath, or otherwise, that there is a material witness in his favor within the jurisdiction of the court, without whose testimony he cannot safely proceed to a trial, giving the name and place of residence of such witness, and that such accused person is poor and has not and cannot obtain the means to procure the attendance of such witnesses at the place of trial, the judge in his discretion may, at a time when the prosecuting officer of the county is present, make an order that a subpoena be issued from such court for such witness in his favor, and *309that it be served by the proper officer of the court. And it shall be the duty of such officer to serve such subpoena, and of the witness or witnesses named therein to attend the trial, and the officer serving such subpoena shall be paid therefor, and the witness therein named shall be paid for attending such trial, in the same manner as if such witness or witnesses had been subpoenaed in behalf of the people [MCL 775.15; MSA 28.1252; emphasis added.]
The heart of this statute is that a defendant must show to the presiding judge that "he cannot safely proceed to a trial” without the proposed witness. It is a requirement that he show a nexus between the facts of the case and the need for an expert. It is only when such a showing has been made by the requesting party that the court can give relief.
It was this approach that the trial judge used. He held that what was lacking, for the defendant to prevail, was the required nexus between the facts and the need for an expert. The progress of the motion and the in-court colloquy make this clear. Defense counsel told the court that he wanted an expert to testify only with respect to the question whether the delay between the initial stop and the administering of the tests rendered the test results unreliable. The court asked if defendant was making an argument that there was not continuous custodial observation, thus providing an opportunity to consume more alcohol between the arrest and the tests. The court also asked defense counsel what were the predicate facts for an expert’s opinion regarding the effect of the delay and what, under the best circumstances, could defense counsel expect a witness to say. Defense counsel merely reiterated that it was the unreasonableness of the delay itself that would be *310the basis for the expert. The court said that without some prima facie showing of some nexus between the facts of the case and the request for the expert, it would deny the motion without prejudice. It went on to say that it would lean strongly toward granting the request if defense counsel could make that showing through a learned treatise and affidavit. The trial court was then focusing, as was its duty, on the need for something more than mere delay. The court was asking: What difference did the delay make? That is the correct inquiry. The majority has obliterated, by its decision, the need for this preliminary "so what” standard. The defense must show not just facts, but that an expert using those facts might reach a conclusion supporting the defendant’s argument that the delay was unreasonable.
The majority’s is an arguable position, and a policy maker could well adopt it. Unfortunately for the proponents of this position, the policy maker in our system of government, the Legislature, did not adopt it. Instead, it adopted a policy that perhaps requires, to use the majority’s metaphor, that the cart be placed before the horse. It is the Legislature’s right to do this. Absent a demonstration that such a policy choice is unconstitutional, which no one claims here, we have no basis, nor is one tendered by the majority, for revising, reworking, or even repealing the Legislature’s decision.
The majority’s decision is also flawed on the basis that, by its rewriting of the statute, it has now made mandatory, not discretionary, the appointment of experts on the basis of a mere request. This will undoubtedly be utilized by many, if not all defendants, at great cost to the taxpayers. Their hope will be that this cost and aggravation will result in an increased receptivity to *311disposal of cases on the basis of avoidance of that cost and aggravation rather than on the merits. Much of this has always gone on, but is it advisable to increase it? I think not. In fact, such an analysis may be why the statute was written as it was rather than as the majority has now rewritten it.
In summary, then, I consider this decision to be an unconstitutional usurpation of the powers of the Legislature.1 We have declined to acknowledge the clear import of the language the Legislature used. In doing this, we have turned the statute on its head. It is axiomatic that such a course of action is improper. As Michigan Supreme Court Justice Thomas M. Cooley stated in 1 Cooley, Constitutional Limitations (8th ed), p 124:
What a court is to do, therefore, is to declare the law as written, leaving it to the people themselves to make such changes as new circumstances may require.
I also consider the decision to be ill-advised policy because the implications of this will be to further impede the disposition of criminal matters on the merits.
I would affirm.

 For general background, see The Federalist No 78 (A. Hamilton).