People v. Lewis

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Lewis

187 N.W.2d 571, 31 Mich. App. 91, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 2041

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 22, 1971

DocketDocket 7578

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 187 N.W.2d 571 (People v. Lewis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Lewis, 187 N.W.2d 571, 31 Mich. App. 91, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 2041 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

After a non-jury trial, the defendant was convicted on charges of rape, MCLA § 750.-520 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.788), and gross indecency, MCLA § 750.338(b) (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.570[2]). The defendant raised insanity as a defense and the court ordered him to undergo a psychiatric examination. He now appeals, contending it was error to compel him to submit to the psychiatric examination and that the trial court did not use the proper test to determine his sanity.

Defendant raises two objections to the compulsory psychiatric examination. He contends that a circuit court lacks the power to order a psychiatric examination in the absence of a statute giving the court such authority; he also contends that a compulsory psychiatric examination violates his privilege against self-incrimination.

Both of these contentions are governed by People v. Sammy Martin (1970), 26 Mich App 467; see People v. Early (1970), 25 Mich App 363. In Martin, the Court held that a circuit court has the inherent power to compel a defendant who has raised an insanity defense to undergo a psychiatric examination. The Court held also that, where the underlying purpose of a psychiatric examination is to obtain data germane to the question of sanity and not to obtain facts relating to defendant’s participation in the crime, defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights are not violated, per se.

In determining that the defendant was sane, the trial court applied the test found in People v. Durfee (1886), 62 Mich 487. The defendant now contends *93 that the court should have used the test found in the Model Penal Code § 4.01, or one of the variants of that test. Furthermore, at no time prior to the verdict did defense counsel request that the test now urged be used. This issue is controlled by People v. Wright (1970), 25 Mich App 499; People v. Markham (1969), 19 Mich App 616; People v. Morris (1968), 10 Mich App 526. In those cases we held that the test found in Durfee, supra, is presently the law of this state.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

After a non-jury trial, the defendant was convicted on charges of rape, MCLA § 750.-520 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.788), and gross indecency, MCLA § 750.338(b) (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.570[2]). The defendant raised insanity as a defense and the court ordered him to undergo a psychiatric examination. He now appeals, contending it was error to compel him to submit to the psychiatric examination and that the trial court did not use the proper test to determine his sanity.

Defendant raises two objections to the compulsory psychiatric examination. He contends that a circuit court lacks the power to order a psychiatric examination in the absence of a statute giving the court such authority; he also contends that a compulsory psychiatric examination violates his privilege against self-incrimination.

Both of these contentions are governed by People v. Sammy Martin (1970), 26 Mich App 467; see People v. Early (1970), 25 Mich App 363. In Martin, the Court held that a circuit court has the inherent power to compel a defendant who has raised an insanity defense to undergo a psychiatric examination. The Court held also that, where the underlying purpose of a psychiatric examination is to obtain data germane to the question of sanity and not to obtain facts relating to defendant’s participation in the crime, defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights are not violated, per se.

In determining that the defendant was sane, the trial court applied the test found in People v. Durfee (1886), 62 Mich 487. The defendant now contends *93 that the court should have used the test found in the Model Penal Code § 4.01, or one of the variants of that test. Furthermore, at no time prior to the verdict did defense counsel request that the test now urged be used. This issue is controlled by People v. Wright (1970), 25 Mich App 499; People v. Markham (1969), 19 Mich App 616; People v. Morris (1968), 10 Mich App 526. In those cases we held that the test found in Durfee, supra, is presently the law of this state.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 N.W.2d 571, 31 Mich. App. 91, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 2041, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lewis-michctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack