People v. Dobben

17 Citing cases

  1. People v. Watkins

    491 Mich. 450 (Mich. 2012)   Cited 501 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that evidence that is admissible under MCL 768.27a may still be excluded under MRE 403

    Id.People v. Dobben, 440 Mich. 679, 697 n. 22, 488 N.W.2d 726 (1992).

  2. McDougall v. Schanz

    461 Mich. 15 (Mich. 1999)   Cited 206 times
    In McDougall v. Schanz, 461 Mich. 15 (Mich. 1999), the Michigan Supreme Court explained that MCL 600.2169(1) "operates to preclude certain witnesses from testifying solely on the basis of the witness' lack of practice or teaching experience in the relevant specialty."

    "We do not lightly presume that the Legislature intended a conflict, calling into question this Court's authority to control practice and procedure in the courts." People v. Dobben, 440 Mich. 679, 697, n 22; 488 N.W.2d 726 (1992). According to defendants, § 2169 and MRE 702 do not conflict.

  3. People v. Webb

    458 Mich. 265 (Mich. 1998)   Cited 102 times
    Explaining that MCL 330.2050, which contains procedures for involuntarily committing persons acquitted of a criminal charge by reason of insanity, is a statute designed to "promote public safety" and "establish a procedure for determining whether a person acquitted by reason of insanity can safely be returned to society" because "[p]ersons acquitted by reason of insanity, particularly where the facts are grave, cannot be allowed simply to walk out the front door of the courthouse"

    With regard to the scope of the expert's testimony, the statute is silent. The Court of Appeals drew guidance from People v Hayes, 421 Mich. 271; 364 N.W.2d 635 (1984), and People v Dobben, 440 Mich. 679; 488 N.W.2d 726 (1992). In Hayes, this Court interpreted the statutory requirement that a defendant cooperate with a psychiatric examination or be barred from presenting any testimony regarding his mental state at trial.

  4. People v. Propp

    508 Mich. 374 (Mich. 2021)   Cited 20 times
    Observing that the defense at issue here is not an affirmative defense at all, but rather a variety of "accident" argument that simply seeks to undermine the intent element for murder

    The Legislature could have expressly exempted evidence admissible under MCL 768.27a from analysis under MRE 403, but it did not. [Watkins , 491 Mich at 482-483, 818 NW2d 296 (alterations in original), quoting McDougall v Schanz , 461 Mich 15, 24, 597 NW2d 148 (1999), and People v Dobben , 440 Mich 679, 697 n 22, 488 NW2d 726 (1992).]The same is true here.

  5. People v. Fackelman

    489 Mich. 515 (Mich. 2011)   Cited 160 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that MRE 702 "permits 'an expert's opinion only if that opinion is based exclusively on evidence that has been introduced into evidence in some way other than through the expert's hearsay testimony.' "

    Contrary to the majority's conclusion, an expert may form his opinion "on historical data, including information and opinions contained in prior competency evaluations, when forming an opinion regarding a defendant's criminal responsibility." People v Dobben, 440 Mich 679, 698; 488 NW2d 726 (1992) (emphasis added). Thus, the fact of Dr. Shahid's diagnosis was one of several pieces of data contained within his evaluation and would not have to be redacted under MRE 703, as the majority suggests.

  6. People v. Pickens

    446 Mich. 298 (Mich. 1994)   Cited 893 times
    Holding that the defendant was not prejudiced by counsel's failure to pursue a diminished capacity defense

    MRE 403 requires the exclusion of relevant evidence "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." The prosecution's reliance on People v Dobben, 440 Mich. 679, 693-694; 488 N.W.2d 726 (1992), for the contention that the only limitation on an expert's testimony is that set forth in MCL 768.20a(5); MSA 28.1043(1)(5) is incorrect. In Dobben, the Court stated: "Section 20a makes no reference to any limitation in the testimony of such an expert, other than that `[s]tatements made by the defendant . . . shall not be admissible . . . on any issues other than . . . mental illness or insanity at the time of the alleged offense.'"

  7. People v. Portus (In re Portus)

    325 Mich. App. 374 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 87 times
    Explaining that a trial court abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law

    Proceedings seeking an order of involuntary mental health treatment under the Mental Health Code for an individual on the basis of mental illness, including when such proceedings are instituted following a not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity verdict, generally are referred to as "civil commitment" proceedings. See, e.g., People v. Dobben , 440 Mich. 679, 690-691, 488 N.W.2d 726 (1992) ; People v. Miller , 440 Mich. 631, 640, 489 N.W.2d 60 (1992) ; People v. Williams , 228 Mich. App. 546, 556-557, 580 N.W.2d 438 (1998) ; In re KB , 221 Mich. App. 414, 417, 562 N.W.2d 208 (1997) ; In re Baker , 117 Mich. App. 591, 592-593, 595, 324 N.W.2d 91 (1982) ; In re Wagstaff , 93 Mich. App. 755, 757, 287 N.W.2d 339 (1979). The specific procedures for obtaining continuing orders of hospitalization or other forms of treatment based on a person's mental illness are contained in various provisions of Chapter 4 of the Mental Health Code, MCL 330.1400 et seq .

  8. Kern v. Kern-Koskela

    320 Mich. App. 212 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 68 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "trial court is entitled to discretion in awarding taxable costs."

    Moreover, this Court should " ‘not lightly presume that the Legislature intended a conflict, calling into question this Court's authority to control practice and procedure in the courts.’ " McDougall , 461 Mich. at 24, 597 N.W.2d 148, quoting People v. Dobben , 440 Mich. 679, 697 n. 22, 488 N.W.2d 726 (1992). Despite plaintiff's protestations to the contrary, MCL 450.1495 and MCR 2.116(C)(10) do not inherently conflict.

  9. People v. Davis

    No. 315308 (Mich. Ct. App. Jul. 31, 2014)

    Further, an expert witness may rely on his or her own observations, a hypothetical question, testimony of other witnesses, hearsay information, and the opinions of other experts in providing his or her opinion of a person's mental condition. People v Dobben, 440 Mich 679, 695-696; 488 NW2d 726 (1992). Defendant does not dispute that he attacked a police officer, Archie Hamilton, during a routine traffic stop, fled the scene of the traffic stop, led officers on a chase through Wyandotte and Lincoln Park, and ultimately resisted arrest when the chase concluded.

  10. People v. Fields

    No. 306624 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2012)

    An expert may rely on hearsay in formulating an opinion. MRE 703; People v Dobben, 440 Mich 679, 695; 488 NW2d 726 (1992). However, defendant argues that Officer Sutherland repeated testimonial statements from non-testifying declarants without a showing of unavailability, therefore violating defendant's right of confrontation.