Background
Donyelle Michael Black was convicted after a 1988 bench trial of first-degree felony murder, armed robbery, and felony-firearm for crimes committed when he was 15. He received life imprisonment without parole for felony murder. After the U.S. Supreme Court prohibited mandatory juvenile life-without-parole sentences and made that rule retroactive, prosecutors sought to reimpose Black’s sentence through a Miller hearing.
At the first Miller hearing, a defense forensic psychologist testified about Black’s adolescent development, difficult upbringing, maturation, and potential for rehabilitation. The prosecution presented no witnesses, and the trial court reimposed life without parole while stating that the prosecution did not bear the burden of proof. After the Michigan Supreme Court later held that prosecutors must rebut the presumption against juvenile life without parole by clear and convincing evidence, the Court of Appeals vacated Black’s sentence and ordered a new hearing.
Before the second hearing, the trial court ordered Black either to undergo an examination by a prosecution-selected psychologist or to forgo his own expert psychological evidence. It also purported to incorporate the evidence from the first hearing into the new proceeding. The Court of Appeals affirmed the compelled-examination ruling, and Black sought review.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Supreme Court unanimously held that when a defendant indicates an intent to introduce expert psychological evidence based on an examination at a Miller hearing, the trial court may require the defendant to undergo a similar examination by a prosecution expert. That condition does not violate the federal or Michigan constitutional protections against self-incrimination because the prosecution may use the resulting evidence only to rebut psychological evidence the defendant actually presents.
The court further held that a trial court may require the defendant to decide before the hearing whether to undergo the prosecution examination. Sitting for the examination does not commit the defendant to presenting expert evidence. If the defendant ultimately presents none, the prosecution may not use its examination; if the defendant does present such evidence, the prosecution’s rebuttal must remain within its scope. The examination also must be a genuine psychological assessment, not a means of conducting general interrogation or cross-examination.
The court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision but vacated the trial court’s orders insofar as they incorporated the first Miller-hearing record or relied on Black’s earlier indication that he intended to present psychological evidence. Because the first sentence and hearing were vacated, the second hearing must begin anew with the prosecution bearing the burden of rebutting the presumption against life without parole by clear and convincing evidence. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- A juvenile-lifer defendant who plans to offer expert psychological evidence based on an examination may be required to undergo a comparable examination by a prosecution expert.
- Evidence obtained through the compelled examination is limited to rebuttal and cannot be used in the prosecution’s case-in-chief.
- The prosecution may use examination evidence only if the defendant actually introduces expert psychological evidence, and the rebuttal may not exceed the scope of the defense evidence.
- A renewed Miller hearing is a distinct proceeding that must begin anew with the prosecution carrying the clear-and-convincing burden.
Why It Matters
The decision establishes a framework for psychological evidence in Michigan juvenile-life-without-parole proceedings. It preserves the prosecution’s ability to test defense expert opinions while protecting defendants against compelled statements being used affirmatively to establish the extraordinary case for life without parole.
The ruling also reinforces that prosecutors, not juvenile defendants, bear the burden at Miller hearings. Prior testimony cannot simply be carried into a new hearing after the original proceeding has been vacated, and trial courts must carefully limit both compelled examinations and any resulting rebuttal testimony.