Careers

Experiences

Industries

Offices

Our Firm

Pages

Our People

Updates

Practices

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is a corporate law firm with over 230 attorneys serving clients in nine offices throughout Michigan. Among the largest law firms in Michigan, Warner works in virtually all areas of business law.

Michigan Law Firm - Warner Norcross + Judd LLP

In <em><a href="http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20150421_C319436_44_319436.OPN.PDF" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">People v. Demond Earl Davis</a></em>, No. 319436, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that under 330.2030(2), both the prosecution and defense have a right to present evidence regarding the defendant’s competency before the trial court makes a redetermination regarding the defendant’s competency to stand trial.&nbsp; Further, pursuant to MCL 330.2034(1), a trial court lacks authority to dismiss criminal charges until and unless a defendant remains incompetent, despite treatment, for the full statutory 15-month period.&nbsp; Here, because the prosecutor was denied the opportunity to present evidence about the defendant’s competency, and because the trial court failed to wait the requisite 15-month period before dismissing the charges, the trial court’s decision to dismiss charges was reversed, the charges were reinstated, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

contentpilot/introduction

Defendant was charged with unarmed robbery and assault with intent to commit great bodily harm less than murder.&nbsp; According to police, the defendant, together with six other boys, jumped a 16-year-old and stole his portable video game system.

core/paragraph

The trial court issued an order for competency examination to determine whether the defendant was competent to stand trial. The psychiatrist’s examination report found the defendant incompetent to stand trial. She did, however, state that “with education and treatment, he may acquire . . . the knowledge required [to stand trial].” She recommended that the court send the defendant to the Kalamazoo Psychiatric Hospital (KPH).

The trial court expressed reservations about the defendant’s ability to become competent for trial, but ultimately issued an order in accordance with the psychiatrist’s recommendations. At the next hearing, defense counsel informed the court that the defendant was still sitting in Wayne County Jail because there was no space for him at KPH. &nbsp;The trial court was upset because the defendant had “gone untreated, basically, for five months.” &nbsp;Further, the court no longer believed that the defendant would attain competence to stand trial within the time limits under MCL 330.2034—in this case, 15 months. Accordingly, the court dismissed the charges.

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision and reinstated the charges against the defendant.&nbsp; In so doing, the Court held that the trial court erred in failing to conduct a proper hearing before a redetermination of the defendant’s competency was made. The only “evidence” submitted was the defense counsel’s statement that the defendant remained at Wayne County Jail and that KPH anticipated an additional six- to eight-week wait for admission. But MCL 330.2030(2) requires that the defense, prosecution, and the court on its own motion be allowed to present additional evidence as to competency. The trial court did not allow the prosecution to present evidence, and instead stated that the redetermination was solely a “judicial decision.”

The trial court’s second error was its choice of dismissal as a remedy. Under MCL 330.2044, there are two situations in which a court may dismiss criminal charges for lack of the defendant’s competency: “(a) upon notification by the prosecutor of his intent to drop the charges, and (b) if the defendant remains incompetent to stand trial 15 months after the original incompetency ruling.” Neither of those situations existed in this case. The prosecutor pursued the charges against the defendant, and 15 months had not passed between the original incompetency ruling and the trial court’s order of dismissal. Although the trial court believed that the defendant would not gain competency within the 15-month limit, the 15 months had not yet passed. The dismissal was, therefore, erroneous.

Partner

Madelaine C. Lane

Labor and Employment

COA holds that trial court lacks authority to dismiss criminal charges unless defendant remains incompetent to stand trial for full statutory 15-month period

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is responsible for the contents of our advertising and this website. Please read our full <a href="/privacy-policy/" aria-label="see privacy policy">privacy policy</a> available on our website. If you have any questions or comments about our website or our Privacy Policy please contact us at <a href="mailto:info@wnj.com">info@wnj.com</a> or 616.752.2000. 

COA holds that trial court lacks authority to dismiss criminal charges unless defendant remains incompetent to stand trial for full statutory 15-month period

professionals