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 made its prohibition against mandatory juvenile life-without-parole sentences retroactive, Michigan prosecutors sought to reimpose that sentence through a Miller hearing.
At Black’s first Miller hearing, a defense psychologist testified about his adolescent development, difficult upbringing, 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 bear the burden at Miller hearings, 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 expert psychological evidence.
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 that the defendant actually presents.
The court further held that Black may be required to decide before the hearing whether to undergo the prosecution examination, but he need not decide whether to present his expert until after the prosecution rests. If he does not present expert psychological evidence, the prosecution cannot use evidence from its examination. Any rebuttal also must remain within the scope of the defense evidence, and the examination cannot serve as a vehicle for general interrogation.
The court affirmed the Court of Appeals 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 required to rebut the presumption against life without parole by clear and convincing evidence.
Key Takeaways
- A juvenile-lifer defendant who offers examination-based expert psychological evidence may be required to undergo a comparable examination by a prosecution expert.
- The prosecution may use evidence obtained or derived from the compelled examination only in rebuttal, not during its case-in-chief.
- The second Miller hearing must proceed on a new record, with the prosecution bearing the clear-and-convincing burden to overcome the presumption against life without parole.
Why It Matters
The decision gives prosecutors a means to test defense psychological evidence at juvenile life-without-parole hearings while imposing constitutional limits on compelled examinations. Its central safeguard is use-based: examination evidence remains unavailable unless the defense presents psychological evidence, and even then it may be used only for appropriately tailored rebuttal.
The ruling also reinforces the distinct posture of Michigan Miller hearings. The prosecution bears the burden, the presumption runs against life without parole, and evidence from a vacated hearing cannot simply be carried forward under an incorrect burden of proof.