Background
Donyelle Michael Black was convicted after a 1988 bench trial of first-degree felony murder, armed robbery, and felony-firearm for offenses committed when he was 15. He received life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for felony murder. After the U.S. Supreme Court held that mandatory juvenile life-without-parole sentences violate the Eighth Amendment and made that rule retroactive, prosecutors sought to reimpose Black’s sentence at a Miller hearing.
At the first Miller hearing, a defense forensic psychologist testified about Black’s adolescent development, childhood, maturation, and potential for rehabilitation. 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. On remand, the trial court required Black either to undergo an examination by a prosecution-selected psychologist or to forgo his own examination-based expert psychological evidence.
The Court’s Holding
In a unanimous opinion by Justice Noah P. Hood, the Michigan Supreme Court held that when a defendant indicates an intent to present 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 defense actually presents.
The Court further held that the defendant may be required to decide before the hearing whether to undergo the prosecution examination, but remains free to decide after the prosecution rests whether to present defense expert evidence. If the defense does not present such evidence, the prosecution may not use its examination. Any rebuttal must remain within the scope of the defense evidence, and the examination may not serve as general interrogation or a substitute for 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 into the second proceeding or relied on Black’s earlier indication that he intended to offer psychological evidence. The second hearing must begin anew, with the prosecution bearing the clear-and-convincing-evidence burden to overcome the presumption against life without parole. The case was remanded to the same trial judge.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant who plans to introduce examination-based expert psychological evidence at a Miller hearing may be required to submit to a comparable examination by a prosecution expert.
- The prosecution may use evidence obtained or derived from its compelled examination only in rebuttal, not in its case-in-chief, and only within the scope opened by the defense evidence.
- A retried Miller proceeding must begin anew when the prior sentence and hearing have been vacated; evidence from the earlier hearing cannot simply be incorporated into the new record.
Why It Matters
The decision defines how Michigan courts must balance a juvenile-lifer defendant’s privilege against self-incrimination with the prosecution’s ability to test psychological evidence concerning youth, maturation, and rehabilitation. It permits an examination in advance to facilitate an orderly hearing while sharply restricting how the prosecution may use the resulting information.
Justice Kimberly A. Thomas separately concurred to emphasize that compelled examinations and resulting testimony must be carefully tailored. She also identified questions not before the Court—including who should conduct such examinations, how experts should be appointed, and whether additional Miller-hearing procedures should be developed—for possible future consideration by trial courts, rulemakers, or the Legislature.