MENTAL HEALTH CODE
Act 258 of 1974
330.2028 Consultations; report; admissibility of evidence.
Sec. 1028.
(1) When the defendant is ordered to undergo an examination pursuant to section 1026, the center or other facility shall, for the purpose of gathering psychiatric and other information pertinent to the issue of the incompetence of the defendant to stand trial, examine the defendant and consult with defense counsel, and may consult with the prosecutor or other persons. Defense counsel shall make himself available for consultation with the center or other facility. The examination shall be performed, defense counsel consulted, and a written report submitted to the court, prosecuting attorney, and defense counsel within 60 days of the date of the order.
(2) The report shall contain:
(a) The clinical findings of the center or other facility.
(b) The facts, in reasonable detail, upon which the findings are based, and upon request of the court, defense, or prosecution additional facts germane to the findings.
(c) The opinion of the center or other facility on the issue of the incompetence of the defendant to stand trial.
(d) If the opinion is that the defendant is incompetent to stand trial, the opinion of the center or other facility on the likelihood of the defendant attaining competence to stand trial, if provided a course of treatment, within the time limit established by section 1034.
(3) The opinion concerning competency to stand trial derived from the examination may not be admitted as evidence for any purpose in the pending criminal proceedings, except on the issues to be determined in the hearings required or permitted by sections 1030 and 1040. The foregoing bar of testimony shall not be construed to prohibit the examining qualified clinician from presenting at other stages in the criminal proceedings opinions concerning criminal responsibility, disposition, or other issues if they were originally requested by the court and are available. Information gathered in the course of a prior examination that is of historical value to the examining qualified clinician may be utilized in the formulation of an opinion in any subsequent court ordered evaluation.
History: 1974, Act 258, Eff. Aug. 6, 1975 ;-- Am. 1975, Act 179, Eff. Aug. 6, 1975
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
20
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2024 · leading case:
People v. Dobben, 488 N.W.2d 726 (Mich. 1992).
People v. Dobben, 488 N.W.2d 726 (Mich. 1992).
· cites it 18× “[5] MCL 330.2028; MSA 14.800(1028). [6] People v Wright, 431 Mich 282, 286 ; 430 NW2d 133 (1988).”
People v. Webb, 580 N.W.2d 884 (Mich. 1998).
· cites it 4× “§ 330.2028(3); M.S.A. § 14.800(1028)(3) ], or its historical context, indicating a legislative purpose to preclude an independent examiner from relying on historical data as a basis for his opinion.”
Howe v. Detroit Free Press, Inc, 487 N.W.2d 374 (Mich. 1992).
· cites it 2× “Likewise, MCL 330.2028(3); MSA 14.800(1028)(3) states that an opinion concerning competency to stand trial "may not be admitted as evidence for any purpose in the pending criminal proceedings," and husbands and wives "shall not be examined" for or against each other without the…”
People v. Davis, 871 N.W.2d 392 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “MCL 330.2028(1). “A defendant who is determined incompetent to stand trial shall not be proceeded against while he is incompetent.”
People v. Wright, 430 N.W.2d 133 (Mich. 1988).
· cites it 2× “NOTES [1] Although this opinion and Estelle use the term "psychiatric" examination, our holding also applies to presentence examinations performed by psychologists and other mental health professionals.”
People v. Thomas, 292 N.W.2d 523 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 2× “23 Although such evidence would be admissible under MCL 330.2028(3); MSA 14.800(1028X3), subject to the trial court’s discretion, we do not view the trial court’s ruling, that injection of the issue of defendant’s competency into the proceedings would be a source of confusion to…”
In Re Carey, 615 N.W.2d 742 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).
“MCL 330.2028(2); MSA 14.800(1028)(2). The court must then conduct a hearing.”
People v. Williams, 333 N.W.2d 577 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 2× “IV At a pretrial hearing on his competence to stand trial, defendant exercised his right under MCL 330.”
People v. Thomas Miller, 453 N.W.2d 269 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 2× “We also reject defendant's next claim that he is entitled to a remand for a new competency evaluation and examination because the forensic examiner did not consult with defense counsel as required by MCL 330.2028; MSA 14.800(1028). This issue was not preserved for appeal.”
People v. Dobben, 468 N.W.2d 527 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 3× “m Defendant’s second argument is that the trial *470 court erred in permitting the prosecutor’s expert witness to rely on the competency reports prepared pursuant to MCL 330.2028; MSA 14.800(1028). We have reviewed the record, and conclude that the introduction of Dr.”
People v. Davis, 332 N.W.2d 606 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983).
“Next, defendant maintains that the delay violated MCL 330.2028; MSA 14.800(1028). That statute mandates that a forensic examination shall be performed "within 60 days of the date of the order” to undergo such a procedure.”
People v. Ashford, 283 N.W.2d 830 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979).
“MCL 330.2028(3); MSA 14.800(1028)(3) provides in part: "Information gathered in the course of a prior examination that is of historical value to the examining qualified clinician may be utilized in the formulation of an opinion in any subsequent court ordered evaluation.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 330.2028(1) — 5 cases
People v. Davis, 871 N.W.2d 392 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
“MCL 330.2028(1). “A defendant who is determined incompetent to stand trial shall not be proceeded against while he is incompetent.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 330.2028(2) — 2 cases
In Re Carey, 615 N.W.2d 742 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).
“MCL 330.2028(2); MSA 14.800(1028)(2). The court must then conduct a hearing.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 330.2028(3) — 9 cases
People v. Dobben, 488 N.W.2d 726 (Mich. 1992).
“[5] MCL 330.2028; MSA 14.800(1028). [6] People v Wright, 431 Mich 282, 286 ; 430 NW2d 133 (1988).”
People v. Webb, 580 N.W.2d 884 (Mich. 1998).
“§ 330.2028(3); M.S.A. § 14.800(1028)(3) ], or its historical context, indicating a legislative purpose to preclude an independent examiner from relying on historical data as a basis for his opinion.”
Howe v. Detroit Free Press, Inc, 487 N.W.2d 374 (Mich. 1992).
“Likewise, MCL 330.2028(3); MSA 14.800(1028)(3) states that an opinion concerning competency to stand trial "may not be admitted as evidence for any purpose in the pending criminal proceedings," and husbands and wives "shall not be examined" for or against each other without the…”
People v. Wright, 430 N.W.2d 133 (Mich. 1988).
“NOTES [1] Although this opinion and Estelle use the term "psychiatric" examination, our holding also applies to presentence examinations performed by psychologists and other mental health professionals.”
People v. Thomas, 292 N.W.2d 523 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980).
“23 Although such evidence would be admissible under MCL 330.2028(3); MSA 14.800(1028X3), subject to the trial court’s discretion, we do not view the trial court’s ruling, that injection of the issue of defendant’s competency into the proceedings would be a source of confusion to…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.