Court Opinion

ID: 9528283
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:39:19.500882+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:36.602727
License: Public Domain

Swainson, J.
I concur in the result reached by Justice J. W. Fitzgerald’s opinion, but I wish to advance a separate rationale. I also find it necessary to distinguish this case from People v Blocker, 393 Mich 501; 227 NW2d 767 (1975).
The facts of the present case make remand for filing of a delayed motion for a new trial a reason*530able remedy. Lucas was examined at the Forensic Center prior to the time of his trial and a report was prepared on the subject of competence by the Forensic Center staff. Upon remand, the court will have this report before it to aid it in determining if Lucas was, in fact, competent to stand trial. The Lucas remand hearing will comply with the letter and spirit of MCLA 767.27a; MSA 28.966(11) and will not be an exercise in complete speculation.
In Blocker, however, there is no expert evidence available concerning Blocker’s competence at the time of his trial. Blocker was not examined by the staff of the certified diagnostic facility, nor was he examined by any person whom the court could call as an expert on the issue of competence. If the trial court had attempted to hold a competence hearing on the evidence available prior to Blocker’s original trial, it surely would have been in error under MCLA 767.27a(4); MSA 28.966(H)(4). I do not believe that the court should be allowed to make a judgment years after a trial that it would legally and professionally have been disqualified from making at the time of trial.
T. M. Kavanagh and Williams, JJ., concurred with Swainson, J.