Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 768 / Act 175 of 1927
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 768.20a (2026)

Insanity as defense in felony case; notice of intention to assert defense; examination; independent psychiatric evaluation; cooperation required; admissibility of statements; report; notice of rebuttal; admissibility of reports; “qualified personnel” defined.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE


Act 175 of 1927


768.20a Insanity as defense in felony case; notice of intention to assert defense; examination; independent psychiatric evaluation; cooperation required; admissibility of statements; report; notice of rebuttal; admissibility of reports; “qualified personnel” defined.

Sec. 20a.

    (1) If a defendant in a felony case proposes to offer in his or her defense testimony to establish his or her insanity at the time of an alleged offense, the defendant shall file and serve upon the court and the prosecuting attorney a notice in writing of his or her intention to assert the defense of insanity not less than 30 days before the date set for the trial of the case, or at such other time as the court directs.

    (2) Upon receipt of a notice of an intention to assert the defense of insanity, a court shall order the defendant to undergo an examination relating to his or her claim of insanity by personnel of the center for forensic psychiatry or by other qualified personnel, as applicable, for a period not to exceed 60 days from the date of the order. When the defendant is to be held in jail pending trial, the center or the other qualified personnel may perform the examination in the jail, or may notify the sheriff to transport the defendant to the center or facility used by the qualified personnel for the examination, and the sheriff shall return the defendant to the jail upon completion of the examination. When the defendant is at liberty pending trial, on bail or otherwise, the defendant shall make himself or herself available for the examination at the place and time established by the center or the other qualified personnel. If the defendant, after being notified of the place and time of the examination, fails to make himself or herself available for the examination, the court may, without a hearing, order his or her commitment to the center.

    (3) The defendant may, at his or her own expense, secure an independent psychiatric evaluation by a clinician of his or her choice on the issue of his or her insanity at the time the alleged offense was committed. If the defendant is indigent, the court may, upon showing of good cause, order that the county pay for an independent psychiatric evaluation. The defendant shall notify the prosecuting attorney at least 5 days before the day scheduled for the independent evaluation that he or she intends to secure such an evaluation. The prosecuting attorney may similarly obtain independent psychiatric evaluation. A clinician secured by an indigent defendant is entitled to receive a reasonable fee as approved by the court.

    (4) The defendant shall fully cooperate in his or her examination by personnel of the center for forensic psychiatry or by other qualified personnel, and by any other independent examiners for the defense and prosecution. If he or she fails to cooperate, and that failure is established to the satisfaction of the court at a hearing prior to trial, the defendant shall be barred from presenting testimony relating to his or her insanity at the trial of the case.

    (5) Statements made by the defendant to personnel of the center for forensic psychiatry, to other qualified personnel, or to any independent examiner during an examination shall not be admissible or have probative value in court at the trial of the case on any issues other than his or her mental illness or insanity at the time of the alleged offense.

    (6) Upon conclusion of the examination, the center for forensic psychiatry or the other qualified personnel, and any independent examiner, shall prepare a written report and shall submit the report to the prosecuting attorney and defense counsel. The report shall contain:

    (a) The clinical findings of the center, the qualified personnel, or any independent examiner.

    (b) The facts, in reasonable detail, upon which the findings were based.

    (c) The opinion of the center or qualified personnel, and the independent examiner on the issue of the defendant's insanity at the time the alleged offense was committed and whether the defendant was mentally ill or intellectually disabled at the time the alleged offense was committed.

    (7) Within 10 days after the receipt of the report from the center for forensic psychiatry or from the qualified personnel, or within 10 days after the receipt of the report of an independent examiner secured by the prosecution, whichever occurs later, but not later than 5 days before the trial of the case, or at another time the court directs, the prosecuting attorney shall file and serve upon the defendant a notice of rebuttal of the defense of insanity which shall contain the names of the witnesses whom the prosecuting attorney proposes to call in rebuttal.

    (8) The report of the center for forensic psychiatry, the qualified personnel, or any independent examiner may be admissible in evidence upon the stipulation of the prosecution and defense.

    (9) As used in this section, "qualified personnel" means personnel meeting standards determined by the department of community health under rules promulgated pursuant to the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328.

History: Add. 1975, Act 180, Eff. Aug. 6, 1975 ;-- Am. 1983, Act 42, Imd. Eff. May 12, 1983 ;-- Am. 2006, Act 655, Imd. Eff. Jan. 9, 2007 ;-- Am. 2014, Act 76, Imd. Eff. Mar. 28, 2014

Constitutionality Notes:

    The requirement that a defendant who raises an insanity defense cooperate in a psychiatric examination relating to the claim of insanity or be barred from presenting evidence of insanity at trial does not infringe upon the defendant's right to present a defense; nor is the sanction unconstitutionally vague. People v Hayes, 421 Mich 271; 364 NW2d 635 (1984).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 110 cases (18 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: People v. Hayes, 364 N.W.2d 635 (Mich. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Hayes, 364 N.W.2d 635 (Mich. 1985). · cites it 50× “[8] MCL 768.20a(2); MSA 28.1043(1)(2). [9] MCL 768.”
People v. Toma, 613 N.W.2d 694 (Mich. 2000). · cites it 34× “§ 768.20a; MSA 28.1043(1), do "not unconstitutionally infringe on a defendant's right to present a defense.”
People v. Shahideh, 758 N.W.2d 536 (Mich. 2008). · cites it 66× “The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that MCL 768.20a did not apply because "only a defendant who `plan[s]' or `intends' to raise the insanity defense at trial must comply with the procedures set forth in MCL 768.”
People v. Pickens, 521 N.W.2d 797 (Mich. 1994). · cites it 14× “While the trial court violated MCL 768.20a.(3); MSA 28.1043(1)(3) by denying defendant’s request for the tests, we affirm the conviction because the error was harmless under the circumstances.”
People v. Shahideh, 743 N.W.2d 233 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 54× “The prosecution refused to agree to such an order absent defendant's exact compliance with the procedures set forth in MCL 768.20a. The trial court ruled that defendant had not complied with MCL 768.”
People v. Webb, 580 N.W.2d 884 (Mich. 1998). · cites it 18× “§ 768.20a; M.S.A. § 28.1043(1) "do[es] not limit the information an independent expert may use as the basis of an opinion regarding criminal responsibility.”
People v. Carpenter, 627 N.W.2d 276 (Mich. 2001). · cites it 8× “§ 768.20a. The Court of Appeals affirmed, explaining that, by enacting 1975 PA 180 , the Legislature intended "to bring under one procedural blanket all defenses to criminal charges that rest upon legal insanity as defined in the statute," and that "the defense known as…”
People v. Dobben, 488 N.W.2d 726 (Mich. 1992). · cites it 22× “However, the Court did not consider *690 the significance of the related provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, MCL 768.20a; MSA 28.1043(1). Examination of the entire statutory scheme, the systemic effect of the Court of Appeals opinion, and the Michigan Rules of Evidence,…”
People v. McCray, 630 N.W.2d 633 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “, People v Toma, 462 Mich 281, 293 ; 613 NW2d 694 (2000) (no exception to MCL 768.20a[5] for impeachment exists). Although FR Crim P 12.”
People v. Sorna, 276 N.W.2d 892 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 6× “Defendant petitioned for and was granted the appointment of an independent psychiatrist to evaluate his insanity, pursuant to MCL 768.20a; MSA 28.1043(1). The prosecutor also requested appointment of a psychiatrist to evaluate the defendant on behalf of the people, also on the…”
People v. Stinson, 318 N.W.2d 513 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 5× “Defendant argued that the prosecutor’s failure to file a notice of rebuttal, as required by MCL 768.20a(7); MSA 28.1043(1)(7), prohibited the prosecution from calling any rebuttal witnesses.”
People v. Wright, 430 N.W.2d 133 (Mich. 1988). · cites it 6× “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.”
Show all 110 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 768.20a(1) — 18 cases
People v. Shahideh, 758 N.W.2d 536 (Mich. 2008). “The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that MCL 768.20a did not apply because "only a defendant who `plan[s]' or `intends' to raise the insanity defense at trial must comply with the procedures set forth in MCL 768.”
People v. Toma, 613 N.W.2d 694 (Mich. 2000). “§ 768.20a; MSA 28.1043(1), do "not unconstitutionally infringe on a defendant's right to present a defense.”
People v. Shahideh, 743 N.W.2d 233 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “The prosecution refused to agree to such an order absent defendant's exact compliance with the procedures set forth in MCL 768.20a. The trial court ruled that defendant had not complied with MCL 768.”
People v. Carpenter, 627 N.W.2d 276 (Mich. 2001). “§ 768.20a. The Court of Appeals affirmed, explaining that, by enacting 1975 PA 180 , the Legislature intended "to bring under one procedural blanket all defenses to criminal charges that rest upon legal insanity as defined in the statute," and that "the defense known as…”
People v. Dobben, 488 N.W.2d 726 (Mich. 1992). “However, the Court did not consider *690 the significance of the related provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, MCL 768.20a; MSA 28.1043(1). Examination of the entire statutory scheme, the systemic effect of the Court of Appeals opinion, and the Michigan Rules of Evidence,…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 768.20a(2) — 23 cases
People v. Toma, 613 N.W.2d 694 (Mich. 2000). “§ 768.20a; MSA 28.1043(1), do "not unconstitutionally infringe on a defendant's right to present a defense.”
People v. Shahideh, 758 N.W.2d 536 (Mich. 2008). “The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that MCL 768.20a did not apply because "only a defendant who `plan[s]' or `intends' to raise the insanity defense at trial must comply with the procedures set forth in MCL 768.”
People v. Hayes, 364 N.W.2d 635 (Mich. 1985). “[8] MCL 768.20a(2); MSA 28.1043(1)(2). [9] MCL 768.”
People v. Dobben, 488 N.W.2d 726 (Mich. 1992). “However, the Court did not consider *690 the significance of the related provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, MCL 768.20a; MSA 28.1043(1). Examination of the entire statutory scheme, the systemic effect of the Court of Appeals opinion, and the Michigan Rules of Evidence,…”
People v. Sullivan, 586 N.W.2d 578 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 768.20a(3) — 27 cases
People v. Pickens, 521 N.W.2d 797 (Mich. 1994). “While the trial court violated MCL 768.20a.(3); MSA 28.1043(1)(3) by denying defendant’s request for the tests, we affirm the conviction because the error was harmless under the circumstances.”
People v. Dobben, 488 N.W.2d 726 (Mich. 1992). “However, the Court did not consider *690 the significance of the related provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, MCL 768.20a; MSA 28.1043(1). Examination of the entire statutory scheme, the systemic effect of the Court of Appeals opinion, and the Michigan Rules of Evidence,…”
People v. Carpenter, 627 N.W.2d 276 (Mich. 2001). “§ 768.20a. The Court of Appeals affirmed, explaining that, by enacting 1975 PA 180 , the Legislature intended "to bring under one procedural blanket all defenses to criminal charges that rest upon legal insanity as defined in the statute," and that "the defense known as…”
People v. Toma, 613 N.W.2d 694 (Mich. 2000). “§ 768.20a; MSA 28.1043(1), do "not unconstitutionally infringe on a defendant's right to present a defense.”
People v. Shahideh, 758 N.W.2d 536 (Mich. 2008). “The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that MCL 768.20a did not apply because "only a defendant who `plan[s]' or `intends' to raise the insanity defense at trial must comply with the procedures set forth in MCL 768.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 768.20a(4) — 14 cases
People v. Hayes, 364 N.W.2d 635 (Mich. 1985). “[8] MCL 768.20a(2); MSA 28.1043(1)(2). [9] MCL 768.”
People v. Toma, 613 N.W.2d 694 (Mich. 2000). “§ 768.20a; MSA 28.1043(1), do "not unconstitutionally infringe on a defendant's right to present a defense.”
People v. Carpenter, 627 N.W.2d 276 (Mich. 2001). “§ 768.20a. The Court of Appeals affirmed, explaining that, by enacting 1975 PA 180 , the Legislature intended "to bring under one procedural blanket all defenses to criminal charges that rest upon legal insanity as defined in the statute," and that "the defense known as…”
People v. Webb, 580 N.W.2d 884 (Mich. 1998). “§ 768.20a; M.S.A. § 28.1043(1) "do[es] not limit the information an independent expert may use as the basis of an opinion regarding criminal responsibility.”
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.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 768.20a(5) — 15 cases
People v. Toma, 613 N.W.2d 694 (Mich. 2000). “§ 768.20a; MSA 28.1043(1), do "not unconstitutionally infringe on a defendant's right to present a defense.”
People v. Pickens, 521 N.W.2d 797 (Mich. 1994). “While the trial court violated MCL 768.20a.(3); MSA 28.1043(1)(3) by denying defendant’s request for the tests, we affirm the conviction because the error was harmless under the circumstances.”
People v. Hayes, 364 N.W.2d 635 (Mich. 1985). “[8] MCL 768.20a(2); MSA 28.1043(1)(2). [9] MCL 768.”
People v. McCray, 630 N.W.2d 633 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). “, People v Toma, 462 Mich 281, 293 ; 613 NW2d 694 (2000) (no exception to MCL 768.20a[5] for impeachment exists). Although FR Crim P 12.”
People v. Dobben, 488 N.W.2d 726 (Mich. 1992). “However, the Court did not consider *690 the significance of the related provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, MCL 768.20a; MSA 28.1043(1). Examination of the entire statutory scheme, the systemic effect of the Court of Appeals opinion, and the Michigan Rules of Evidence,…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 768.20a(6) — 6 cases
People v. Webb, 580 N.W.2d 884 (Mich. 1998). “§ 768.20a; M.S.A. § 28.1043(1) "do[es] not limit the information an independent expert may use as the basis of an opinion regarding criminal responsibility.”
People v. Hayes, 364 N.W.2d 635 (Mich. 1985). “[8] MCL 768.20a(2); MSA 28.1043(1)(2). [9] MCL 768.”
People v. Blue, 411 N.W.2d 451 (Mich. 1987).
People v. Dobben, 468 N.W.2d 527 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991).
People v. Howe, 503 N.W.2d 749 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 768.20a(6)(a) — 1 case
People v. Sorna, 276 N.W.2d 892 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). “Defendant petitioned for and was granted the appointment of an independent psychiatrist to evaluate his insanity, pursuant to MCL 768.20a; MSA 28.1043(1). The prosecutor also requested appointment of a psychiatrist to evaluate the defendant on behalf of the people, also on the…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 768.20a(6)(b) — 1 case
People v. Dobben, 488 N.W.2d 726 (Mich. 1992). “However, the Court did not consider *690 the significance of the related provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, MCL 768.20a; MSA 28.1043(1). Examination of the entire statutory scheme, the systemic effect of the Court of Appeals opinion, and the Michigan Rules of Evidence,…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 768.20a(7) — 8 cases
People v. Stinson, 318 N.W.2d 513 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982). “Defendant argued that the prosecutor’s failure to file a notice of rebuttal, as required by MCL 768.20a(7); MSA 28.1043(1)(7), prohibited the prosecution from calling any rebuttal witnesses.”
People v. Caulley, 494 N.W.2d 853 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992).
People v. Hamm, 298 N.W.2d 896 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980).
People v. Williams, 310 N.W.2d 246 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981).
People v. Jurkiewicz, 316 N.W.2d 440 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 768.20a(8) — 1 case
People v. Wilsher, 454 N.W.2d 178 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 768.20a(l) — 10 cases
People v. Toma, 613 N.W.2d 694 (Mich. 2000). “§ 768.20a; MSA 28.1043(1), do "not unconstitutionally infringe on a defendant's right to present a defense.”
People v. Carpenter, 627 N.W.2d 276 (Mich. 2001). “§ 768.20a. The Court of Appeals affirmed, explaining that, by enacting 1975 PA 180 , the Legislature intended "to bring under one procedural blanket all defenses to criminal charges that rest upon legal insanity as defined in the statute," and that "the defense known as…”
People v. Wilkins, 459 N.W.2d 57 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990).
People v. Bero, 425 N.W.2d 138 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).
People v. Lloyd, 590 N.W.2d 738 (Mich. 1999).
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.