People v. Steinhoff

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Steinhoff

195 N.W.2d 780, 38 Mich. App. 135, 1972 Mich. App. LEXIS 1545

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 24, 1972

DocketDocket 10195

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 195 N.W.2d 780 (People v. Steinhoff) 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. Steinhoff, 195 N.W.2d 780, 38 Mich. App. 135, 1972 Mich. App. LEXIS 1545 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

*136 Per Ctjriam.

Defendant appeals his conviction by jury of carrying a dangerous weapon with unlawful intent. MCLA 750.226; MSA 28.423.

Defendant, through appointed appellate counsel, poses the issue for our determination as follows: Did the trial court abuse its discretion by not allowing the attorney for defendant adequate time to offer a defense of insanity, where it clearly was the only appropriate defense available?

The record reveals that the trial court ordered the defendant committed to the custody of the Center for Forensic Psychiatry pursuant to MCLA 767.27a(3); MSA 28.966(H)(3), for examination in order to determine his competency to stand trial. Thereafter it was determined, in accordance with the above examination, that the defendant was competent to stand trial.

Subsequently, at the commencement of trial, defense counsel filed a motion for leave to present the defense of insanity. The required four-day notice for such defense, MCLA 768.20, 768.21; MSA 28-.1043, 28.1044, was not given. Following a conference between defendant and his attorney, a statement was made on the record to the effect that he was withdrawing his motion for leave to present the defense of insanity. The record reveals that defendant insisted that his counsel withdraw his claim of insanity at this point in the proceedings. Counsel’s withdrawal of such motion at the request of the defendant had the effect of leaving the record as it stood prior to the filing of the motion. 56 Am Jur 2d, Motions, Rules and Orders, § 22, p 18. The trial court, therefore, had no occasion to exercise its discretion to rule on the admissibility of evidence of insanity. MCLA 768.21; MSA 28.1044. The *137 question as to abuse of discretion is, therefore, not before this Court for review.

Affirmed.

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

*136 Per Ctjriam.

Defendant appeals his conviction by jury of carrying a dangerous weapon with unlawful intent. MCLA 750.226; MSA 28.423.

Defendant, through appointed appellate counsel, poses the issue for our determination as follows: Did the trial court abuse its discretion by not allowing the attorney for defendant adequate time to offer a defense of insanity, where it clearly was the only appropriate defense available?

The record reveals that the trial court ordered the defendant committed to the custody of the Center for Forensic Psychiatry pursuant to MCLA 767.27a(3); MSA 28.966(H)(3), for examination in order to determine his competency to stand trial. Thereafter it was determined, in accordance with the above examination, that the defendant was competent to stand trial.

Subsequently, at the commencement of trial, defense counsel filed a motion for leave to present the defense of insanity. The required four-day notice for such defense, MCLA 768.20, 768.21; MSA 28-.1043, 28.1044, was not given. Following a conference between defendant and his attorney, a statement was made on the record to the effect that he was withdrawing his motion for leave to present the defense of insanity. The record reveals that defendant insisted that his counsel withdraw his claim of insanity at this point in the proceedings. Counsel’s withdrawal of such motion at the request of the defendant had the effect of leaving the record as it stood prior to the filing of the motion. 56 Am Jur 2d, Motions, Rules and Orders, § 22, p 18. The trial court, therefore, had no occasion to exercise its discretion to rule on the admissibility of evidence of insanity. MCLA 768.21; MSA 28.1044. The *137 question as to abuse of discretion is, therefore, not before this Court for review.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

195 N.W.2d 780, 38 Mich. App. 135, 1972 Mich. App. LEXIS 1545, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-steinhoff-michctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack