PEOPLE OF MI V AMIR AZIZ SHAHIDEH
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
FOR PUBLICATION
October 25, 2007
9:05 a.m.
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 267961
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 2005-203450-FC
AMIR AZIZ SHAHIDEH,
Defendant-Appellant.
Official Reported Version
Before: Servitto, P.J., and Jansen and Schuette, JJ.
SCHUETTE, J. (dissenting)
I do not believe that the trial court erred in denying defendant's pretrial request for an
independent psychological examination. Therefore, I respectfully dissent from the opinion of my
distinguished colleagues in the majority.
The primary goal of statutory interpretation is to give effect to the Legislature's intent.
People v Gillis, 474 Mich 105, 114; 712 NW2d 419 (2006). To determine the Legislature's
intent, we must first look to the specific language of the statute. People v Lively, 470 Mich 248,
253; 680 NW2d 878 (2004). We consider both the plain meaning of the words or phrases and
their "'"placement and purpose in the statutory scheme."'" Gillis, supra at 114, quoting Sun
Valley Foods Co v Ward, 460 Mich 230, 237; 596 NW2d 119 (1999), quoting Bailey v United
States, 516 US 137, 145; 116 S Ct 501; 133 L Ed 2d 472 (1995).
MCL 768.20a governs the use of an insanity defense in felony cases, providing, in
pertinent part, as follows:
(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
-1-
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.
In enacting MCL 768.20a and MCL 768.21a, the Legislature created a comprehensive
statutory scheme governing the use of the insanity defense. A defendant may not raise the
affirmative defense of insanity if he or she refuses to comply with MCL 768.20a. People v
Hayes, 421 Mich 271, 279-283; 364 NW2d 635 (1984). Although a defendant has a
constitutional right to present a defense, US Const, Am VI; Const 1963, art 1, § 20, that right is
not absolute. Hayes, supra at 279. Rather, a defendant must still comply with the "'established
rules of procedure and evidence designed to assure both fairness and reliability in the
ascertainment of guilt and innocence.'" Id. (citation omitted). Indeed, our Supreme Court has
recognized that limitations placed on the insanity defense under the procedures set forth in MCL
768.20a do "'not unconstitutionally infringe on a defendant's right to present a defense.'" People
v Toma, 462 Mich 281, 294; 613 NW2d 694 (2000), quoting Hayes, supra at 283. Therefore,
our Supreme Court has held that it is appropriate to preclude evidence of insanity when a
defendant fails to follow the procedures set forth in MCL 768.20a. Hayes, supra at 283 (noting
that it is "an appropriate means of protecting the integrity, accuracy, and credibility of evidence
of insanity").
I disagree with the majority's conclusion that defendant's request for an independent
psychological examination was not governed by MCL 768.20a. I agree with the trial court that
the statute should be read in chronological order, i.e., a defendant cannot seek an independent
psychological examination under MCL 768.20a(3) before complying with MCL 768.20a(1) and
(2). Looking to the language of the statute, its ordering, and its purpose, this is the most logical
interpretation. Therefore, in this case, defendant did not have the right to an independent
-2-
psychological examination before meeting the first two conditions—giving notice of an insanity
defense and being evaluated by the center for forensic psychiatry.
Finally, even if the majority is correct that MCL 768.20a does not govern defendant's
request for an independent psychological examination, defendant's constitutional rights were not
violated by the trial court's decision in this case. Defendant was not deprived of the right to
pursue a defense or to have his own expert evaluate his mental condition. Rather, he was merely
required to follow the procedures set forth MCL 768.20a, and, because of this, he chose to forgo
his insanity defense.
For all of these reasons, I would affirm the trial court's decision.
/s/ Bill Schuette
-3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.