Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it precluded the defendant from presenting evidence about his mental health to negate the specific intent element of the charged offenses; People v. Feezel; People v. Carpenter; "Newly discovered" evidence; People v. Cress; Whether the trial court properly admitted evidence that defendant threatened his sister in 2006; Waiver; People v. Carter; Jury instruction addressing mitigating circumstances (CJI2d 17.4); People v. Hartuniewicz; People v. McKinney; Assault with intent to commit murder (AWIM); Assault with intent to do great bodily harm (AWIGBH)

The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it precluded the defendant from presenting evidence about his mental health to negate the specific intent element of the charged offenses. Thus, his convictions of two counts of AWIM and one count of AWIGBH were affirmed. Defendant's convictions arose from a domestic incident. "Testimony and evidence established that he attacked his sister with a small knife and hammer. He then turned on his parents after they tried to intervene." On appeal, he argued that the trial court erred when it precluded him from presenting expert testimony as to his mental illness. Two doctors examined defendant before trial and determined that he was not legally insane at the time of the charged acts and he elected not to pursue an insanity defense at trial. Although he chose not to present an insanity defense, he argued that "he should have been permitted to present expert testimony concerning his mental health to prove that he could not form the specific intent necessary to commit the charged offenses." But the Supreme Court has specifically held that a "defendant who does not meet the requirements stated under MCL 768.21a cannot present evidence of mental illness to negate the specific intent element of a crime." Such evidence "is precluded because ‘the insanity defense as established by the Legislature is the sole standard for determining criminal responsibility as it relates to mental illness or retardation.'" The "comprehensive statutory scheme concerning the insanity defense is intended to ‘preclude the use of any evidence of a defendant's lack of mental capacity short of legal insanity to avoid or reduce criminal responsibility by negating specific intent.'" The court also rejected his other claims on appeal.