Constitutional right to present a defense; People v. King; Exclusion of expert testimony offered to support an involuntary intoxication defense; People v. Caulley; Relevant evidence; MRE 401 & 402; The no longer viable diminished capacity defense; People v. Carpenter; People v. Yost; Denial of request for an involuntary intoxication defense jury instruction; People v. Dobek; People v. Crawford; Assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder (AWIGBH); Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding defendant’s proposed expert testimony because it was not relevant to his involuntary intoxication defense and thus, he was not denied his constitutional right to present a defense. The trial court also did not abuse its discretion in denying his request for a jury instruction on this defense given that the evidence did not support it. Thus, the court affirmed his AWIGBH, assault by strangulation, and unlawful imprisonment convictions and sentences. Defendant, who suffered from COPD, sought to have a critical pulmonary medicine physician (T) who treated him for the disease testify in support of his proposed involuntary intoxication defense. However, the court noted that T’s testimony did not support that defendant “had ingested intoxicating substances before the crimes were committed and that he was rendered temporarily insane as a result.” Instead, T testified that defendant’s “medical condition could cause confusion and could adversely affect his judgment.” Further, even assuming that the symptoms of his “COPD were analogous to an intoxicating substance, [T] explained that the symptoms were brought on by” defendant’s smoking and failing to use his oxygen machine. T’s testimony supported that defendant knew “he could suffer from mental deficiencies if he did not manage his condition given that, in 2015, he suffered from confusion as a result of his COPD.” Thus, T’s testimony did not support that defendant “was rendered temporarily insane after he unknowingly ingested an intoxicating substance or after he ingested a substance that he did not know to be an intoxicant.” Instead, at best, his testimony supported that defendant “could have lacked the ability to form the requisite intent to commit the charged crimes as a result of his medical condition. However, as the trial court concluded, such a theory would be akin to a diminished capacity defense, which is no longer a viable defense in Michigan.” As to the denial of the jury instruction, in addition to the fact T’s testimony did not support it, trial testimony supported that defendant “ingested marijuana and/or alcohol before the assaults occurred, and there was no evidence to support” that he did not do so knowingly.