diminished capacity defense in Michigan

2022Cf. People v Pickens, 446 Mich 298, 330 ; 521 NW2d 797 (1994) (defense counsel’s failure to present a diminished- capacity defense reflected a strategic choice to focus instead on the insanity defense); People v Dunigan, 299 Mich App 579, 583-584 ; 831 NW2d 243 (2013) (theory of the defense precluded the need for the jury instruction at issue because “that instruction would have been inconsistent with, and potentially detrimental to, defendant’s theory that he was not the perpetrator and had been falsely accused by the victim”); People v Robinson, 154 Mich App 92, 94 ; 397 NW2d 229 (1986) (def

2022Cf. People v Pickens, 446 Mich 298, 330 ; 521 NW2d 797 (1994) (defense counsel’s failure to present a diminished- capacity defense reflected a strategic choice to focus instead on the insanity defense); People v Dunigan, 299 Mich App 579, 583-584 ; 831 NW2d 243 (2013) (theory of the defense precluded the need for the jury instruction at issue because “that instruction would have been inconsistent with, and potentially detrimental to, defendant’s theory that he was not the perpetrator and had been falsely accused by the victim”); People v Robinson, 154 Mich App 92, 94 ; 397 NW2d 229 (1986) (def

2022Cf. People v Pickens, 446 Mich 298, 330 ; 521 NW2d 797 (1994) (defense counsel’s failure to present a diminished- capacity defense reflected a strategic choice to focus instead on the insanity defense); People v Dunigan, 299 Mich App 579, 583-584 ; 831 NW2d 243 (2013) (theory of the defense precluded the need for the jury instruction at issue because “that instruction would have been inconsistent with, and potentially detrimental to, defendant’s theory that he was not the perpetrator and had been falsely accused by the victim”); People v Robinson, 154 Mich App 92, 94 ; 397 NW2d 229 (1986) (def

2022Cf. People v Pickens, 446 Mich 298, 330 ; 521 NW2d 797 (1994) (defense counsel’s failure to present a diminished- capacity defense reflected a strategic choice to focus instead on the insanity defense); People v Dunigan, 299 Mich App 579, 583-584 ; 831 NW2d 243 (2013) (theory of the defense precluded the need for the jury instruction at issue because “that instruction would have been inconsistent with, and potentially detrimental to, defendant’s theory that he was not the perpetrator and had been falsely accused by the victim”); People v Robinson, 154 Mich App 92, 94 ; 397 NW2d 229 (1986) (def

2022Cf. People v Pickens, 446 Mich 298, 330 ; 521 NW2d 797 (1994) (defense counsel’s failure to present a diminished- capacity defense reflected a strategic choice to focus instead on the insanity defense); People v Dunigan, 299 Mich App 579, 583-584 ; 831 NW2d 243 (2013) (theory of the defense precluded the need for the jury instruction at issue because “that instruction would have been inconsistent with, and potentially detrimental to, defendant’s theory that he was not the perpetrator and had been falsely accused by the victim”); People v Robinson, 154 Mich App 92, 94 ; 397 NW2d 229 (1986) (def

2022Cf. People v Pickens, 446 Mich 298, 330 ; 521 NW2d 797 (1994) (defense counsel’s failure to present a diminished- capacity defense reflected a strategic choice to focus instead on the insanity defense); People v Dunigan, 299 Mich App 579, 583-584 ; 831 NW2d 243 (2013) (theory of the defense precluded the need for the jury instruction at issue because “that instruction would have been inconsistent with, and potentially detrimental to, defendant’s theory that he was not the perpetrator and had been falsely accused by the victim”); People v Robinson, 154 Mich App 92, 94 ; 397 NW2d 229 (1986) (def

1987People v Mangiapane, 85 Mich App 379, 395 ; 271 NW2d 240 (1978).

1987People v Mangiapane, 85 Mich App 379, 395 ; 271 NW2d 240 (1978).

2025Id. effective assistance of counsel is denied.” People v Strong, 143 Mich App 442, 449 ; 372 NW2d 335 (1985). 17 We are aware that People v Madison, ___ Mich ___; 12 NW3d 440 (2024) (Docket No. 167120), is currently pending on leave granted before our Supreme Court and will address the question of whether Carpenter was correctly decided and, if not, whether it should be retained. -12- 2.

2025People v LaVearn, 448 Mich 207, 216 ; 528 NW2d 721 (1995) (determining that a counsel “faced with a choice between two defenses with significant evidentiary problems” may elect to pursue one over the other).

2025People v LaVearn, 448 Mich 207, 216 ; 528 NW2d 721 (1995) (determining that a counsel “faced with a choice between two defenses with significant evidentiary problems” may elect to pursue one over the other).

2025Id. effective assistance of counsel is denied.” People v Strong, 143 Mich App 442, 449 ; 372 NW2d 335 (1985). 17 We are aware that People v Madison, ___ Mich ___; 12 NW3d 440 (2024) (Docket No. 167120), is currently pending on leave granted before our Supreme Court and will address the question of whether Carpenter was correctly decided and, if not, whether it should be retained. -12- 2.

2025Id. effective assistance of counsel is denied.” People v Strong, 143 Mich App 442, 449 ; 372 NW2d 335 (1985). 17 We are aware that People v Madison, ___ Mich ___; 12 NW3d 440 (2024) (Docket No. 167120), is currently pending on leave granted before our Supreme Court and will address the question of whether Carpenter was correctly decided and, if not, whether it should be retained. -12- 2.

2024See People v Leffew, 508 Mich 625 , 638; 975 NW2d 896 (2022) (stating that a defense lawyer is not ineffective for failing to advance a meritless argument); People v Reed, 453 Mich 685, 695 ; 556 NW2d 858 (1996) (stating that defense counsel cannot be faulted for failing to advance a legal argument that had not been recognized by any Michigan authority).

2024See People v Leffew, 508 Mich 625 , 638; 975 NW2d 896 (2022) (stating that a defense lawyer is not ineffective for failing to advance a meritless argument); People v Reed, 453 Mich 685, 695 ; 556 NW2d 858 (1996) (stating that defense counsel cannot be faulted for failing to advance a legal argument that had not been recognized by any Michigan authority).

2021We REMAND this case to the Jackson Circuit Court for an evidentiary hearing pursuant to People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436 (1973), regarding whether the defendant’s trial counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance by: (1) failing to object under MRE 404(b) to the prosecutor’s questions during the cross-examination of the defendant, see People v Wilder, 502 Mich 57 (2018); (2) presenting a diminished capacity defense, see People v Carpenter, 464 Mich 223, 241 (2001); and (3) failing to investigate and pursue an insanity defense based on the defendant’s post-traumatic stress disorder.

2021We REMAND this case to the Jackson Circuit Court for an evidentiary hearing pursuant to People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436 (1973), regarding whether the defendant’s trial counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance by: (1) failing to object under MRE 404(b) to the prosecutor’s questions during the cross-examination of the defendant, see People v Wilder, 502 Mich 57 (2018); (2) presenting a diminished capacity defense, see People v Carpenter, 464 Mich 223, 241 (2001); and (3) failing to investigate and pursue an insanity defense based on the defendant’s post-traumatic stress disorder.

2001The trial court refused to admit the evidence on the ground that the defendant had never raised an insanity defense and did not give the required statutory notice. 6 In reversing the defendant’s jury conviction, the Court of Appeals rejected the prosecution’s argument that allowing evidence of mental illness less than insanity as bearing on the defendant’s capacity to form the intent required to commit a particular crime would “sanction a subterfuge” avoiding the standards of the insanity defense enunciated by this Court in People v Durfee, 62 Mich 487 ; 29 NW 109 (1886). 7 The Court also disa

2001The trial court refused to admit the evidence on the ground that the defendant had never raised an insanity defense and did not give the required statutory notice. 6 In reversing the defendant’s jury conviction, the Court of Appeals rejected the prosecution’s argument that allowing evidence of mental illness less than insanity as bearing on the defendant’s capacity to form the intent required to commit a particular crime would “sanction a subterfuge” avoiding the standards of the insanity defense enunciated by this Court in People v Durfee, 62 Mich 487 ; 29 NW 109 (1886). 7 The Court also disa

2001See Compton, Expert witness testimony and the diminished capacity defense, 20 Am J Trial Advoc 381, 387-388, n. 63 (1996-1997); State v. Mott, 187 Ariz. 536, 555 , 931 P.2d 1046 (1997) (Feldman, J., dissenting).

2001See Compton, Expert witness testimony and the diminished capacity defense, 20 Am J Trial Advoc 381, 387-388, n 63 (1996-1997); State v Mott, 187 Ariz 536, 555; 931 P2d 1046 (1997) (Feldman, J., dissenting).

2001In Martin, supra at 418, 192 N.W.2d 215 , we explained the "salient elements" of the Durfee test as follows: "1) whether defendant knew what he was doing was right or wrong; and 2) if he did, did he have the power, the will power, to resist doing the wrongful act?" [8] It apparently is well recognized that the diminished capacity defense originated in Scotland in 1867.

2001In Martin, supra at 418 , we explained the “salient elements” of the Durfee test as follows: “1) whether defendant knew what he was doing was right or wrong; and 2) if he did, did he have the power, the will power, to resist doing the wrongful act?” It apparently is well recognized that the diminished capacity defense originated in Scotland in 1867.

2001Instead, it was our Court of Appeals, in People v Lynch, 47 Mich App 8 ; 208 NW2d 656 (1973), that introduced to Michigan the diminished capacity defense.

2001Instead, it was our Court of Appeals, in People v Lynch, 47 Mich App 8 ; 208 NW2d 656 (1973), that introduced to Michigan the diminished capacity defense.

1994The jury rejected such a finding when it rejected the guilty but mentally ill verdict. [9] I am sympathetic to the defendant's claim that because of attorney Graziotti's inadequacies, "he brought an aura of unprofessionalism that reflected so badly on the Appellant and his defense." However, the defendant has done no more to show prejudice than to make a bare allegation that "because of counsel's serious mistakes, he was substantially prejudiced thereby and but for same may have had a strong likelihood of acquittal." Id. [1] Strickland v Washington, 446 US 668 , 708; 104 S Ct 2052 ; 80 L Ed 2d

1994The jury rejected such a finding when it rejected the guilty but mentally ill verdict. [9] I am sympathetic to the defendant's claim that because of attorney Graziotti's inadequacies, "he brought an aura of unprofessionalism that reflected so badly on the Appellant and his defense." However, the defendant has done no more to show prejudice than to make a bare allegation that "because of counsel's serious mistakes, he was substantially prejudiced thereby and but for same may have had a strong likelihood of acquittal." Id. [1] Strickland v Washington, 446 US 668 , 708; 104 S Ct 2052 ; 80 L Ed 2d

1987People v Jones, 151 Mich App 1, 5-6 ; 390 NW2d 189 (1986).

1987People v Jones, 151 Mich App 1, 5-6 ; 390 NW2d 189 (1986).

1985Mangiapane, supra, p 395 ; People v Denton, 138 Mich App 568 ; 360 NW2d 245 (1984).

1985Mangiapane, supra, p 395 ; People v Denton, 138 Mich App 568 ; 360 NW2d 245 (1984).

1985MCL 768.20a(l); MSA 28.1043(1)(1), People v Atkins, 117 Mich App 430, 435-436 ; 324 NW2d 38 (1982); People v Mangiapane, 85 Mich App 379, 395 ; 271 NW2d 240 (1978).

1985MCL 768.20a(l); MSA 28.1043(1)(1), People v Atkins, 117 Mich App 430, 435-436 ; 324 NW2d 38 (1982); People v Mangiapane, 85 Mich App 379, 395 ; 271 NW2d 240 (1978).

1985This case is squarely within the Blocker, supra, rule.

1982We are referred to People v Conley, 64 Cal 2d 310; 49 Cal Rptr 815; 411 P2d 911 (1966), and we are asked to adopt the diminished-capacity rule of that case.

1982We are referred to People v Conley, 64 Cal 2d 310; 49 Cal Rptr 815; 411 P2d 911 (1966), and we are asked to adopt the diminished-capacity rule of that case.