Due process; Right to prepare a defense; Denial of defendant’s request to appoint a psychiatrist to determine the validity of an insanity defense & a psychologist to aid him in challenging the voluntaries of his confessions; People v Kennedy; MCL 768.20a; People v Kowalski

Holding that defendant failed to show good cause for funds for an expert psychiatrist and that he offered nothing “more than a bare assertion” he suffered from mental illnesses that caused his confessions to be involuntary, the court affirmed the denial of his request for funds for a psychiatrist and a psychologist. In this interlocutory appeal, he argued that the trial court violated his rights to due process and to adequately prepare a defense by denying “his request to appoint a psychiatrist to determine the validity of an insanity defense and a psychologist to aid him in challenging the voluntaries of confessions that he made to law enforcement.” The court concluded that while the trial court incorrectly analyzed the issue as to the request for funds for a psychiatrist, the right result was reached. Defendant did not show, as required under Kennedy, that there was “a reasonable probability both that an expert would be of assistance to the defense and that denial of expert assistance would result in a fundamentally unfair trial.” He simply asserted, without “evidence, that he suffers from a variety of mental illnesses that caused him to be legally insane at the time of his alleged offenses.” He only contended, without “evidence, that his ‘documented health issues’ will be a ‘significant factor at trial.’” This was insufficient under Kennedy. While “MCL 768.20a provides that a court ‘may, upon showing of good cause,’ grant monies for an independent psychiatric evaluation of an indigent defendant, defendant wholly fails to show good cause beyond an unsupported assertion that he suffers from various mental illnesses.” The court also affirmed the denial of funds for an expert psychologist. Although it found the trial court’s reasoning erroneous, reversal was not required given his failure to provide any support for his claim “that mental illness caused him to make involuntary statements to law enforcement.”