Sentencing a juvenile for first-degree felony murder; Miller v Alabama; People v Taylor; Right against self-incrimination; Order compelling defendant to submit to a psychological evaluation by the prosecution’s expert; Striking a defense expert’s report & testimony; Kansas v Cheever; Estelle v Smith; Buchanan v Kentucky; Allen v State (FL); Applicability of the right to a fair trial in the context of a Miller hearing

The court held “that when a defendant intends on submitting an expert witness and report to the trial court that addresses any relevant Miller factors, neither the Fifth Amendment nor art 1, § 17 of the Michigan Constitution are violated when the defendant is required by court order to submit to an examination by a state witness.” It also rejected his right to a fair trial claim, noting that this right “does not apply in the context of a Miller hearing.” The case arose from defendant’s murder, rape, and robbery of a randomly selected victim when he was 15. At issue on appeal was “an order resolving an evidentiary issue prior to defendant’s second Miller hearing.” He contended that “the trial court order compelling him to submit to a psychological evaluation by the prosecution’s expert, or striking” a defense expert’s (H) “report and testimony, violated his federal and state constitutional right against self-incrimination.” The court concluded, applying Cheever, Buchanan, and Estelle, “that the trial court’s order did not violate defendant’s right against self-incrimination because the prosecution seeks to offer the evidence, as part of the new burden of proof imposed upon it by Taylor, for at least the limited purpose of rebutting [H’s] examination and testimony, which will provide the [trial] court with a complete picture of defendant. In other words, because ‘the prosecutor bears the burden of proof at a Miller hearing[,]’ and ‘[t]hat burden is to rebut a presumption that the particular juvenile defendant is not deserving of’ life without parole, . . . providing the prosecution the ability to have its expert meet with defendant for purposes of expert evaluation and testimony to rebut defendant’s evidence does not violate his right against self-incrimination.” The court noted that many “state appellate courts have addressed whether a trial court can, consistent with the Fifth Amendment, compel a defendant to cooperate with a state expert witness during the sentencing phase of the case. Those courts are uniform in concluding that, consistent with Estelle, Cheever, and Buchanan, the Fifth Amendment is not violated (or the right is waived) by requiring defendant to cooperate with a state expert hired to rebut the evidence defendant is submitting on the issue.” The court found the trial court order here was not in error. Affirmed.