PEOPLE v. HOWARD

Factual and Procedural Background

John Howard was tried and convicted by a jury on two counts of first-degree murder (MCLA 750.316; MSA 28.548). Prior to trial, defense counsel moved for the defendant's commitment so that his competency to stand trial could be determined under GCR 1963, 786.3. The trial court initially ordered commitment but then amended its order to require an examination by a local clinical psychologist to determine whether commitment to a diagnostic facility was necessary to decide competency. The Court of Appeals concluded the trial court's amendment was erroneous and reversible. The panel (R.B. Burns, P.J., Fitzgerald and V.J. Brennan, JJ.; opinion by V.J. Brennan, J.) reversed and remanded with instructions that the defendant be committed to a diagnostic institution and for a new trial. The opinion was decided January 19, 1972, Docket No. 10637, Michigan Court of Appeals.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether, when a defendant's competency to stand trial is questioned and that question is raised by the defendant's motion, GCR 1963, 786.3 mandates that the trial court commit the defendant to a diagnostic facility rather than order a preliminary local psychological examination.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis is concise and proceeds from the mandatory language of the court rule. The panel observed that GCR 1963, 786.3 imposes a mandatory duty on the trial court: whenever there is any question as to a defendant's competency to stand trial and that question is raised upon defendant's motion, the court "shall" order the defendant committed to a diagnostic facility. The trial court's initial order complied with the rule but the subsequent amendment — directing only a local clinical psychologist to examine the defendant to determine whether commitment was necessary — conflicted with the mandatory directive of the rule. Citing People v. Ledbetter, 31 Mich. App. 160 (1971), the court concluded that the amended procedure was erroneous. Based on this legal principle and its application to the facts (the court's departure from an obligatory commitment), the panel found reversible error and ordered reversal and remand for commitment and a new trial.

Holding and Implications

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Direct effect: The conviction was reversed and the cause remanded with instructions that the defendant be committed to a diagnostic institution for competency determination under GCR 1963, 786.3, and that a new trial be held. The opinion does not purport to establish broader legal innovations beyond enforcing the mandatory nature of the cited court rule.