People v Black
Key claim: If a defendant intends to introduce expert psychological evidence at a Miller hearing, the trial court may compel a psychological examination by a prosecution expert, and any resulting evidence is admissible only as rebuttal, not in the prosecution’s case-in-chief.
Abstract
Michigan Supreme Court opinion decided 2026-07-30. Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan
Syllabus Chief Justice: Justices: Megan K. Cavanagh Brian K. Zahra Richard H. Bernstein Elizabeth M. Welch Kyra H. Bolden Kimberly A. Thomas Noah P. Hood
This syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been Reporter of Decisions: prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. Kimberly K. Muschong
PEOPLE v BLACK
Docket No. 168159. Argued April 8, 2026 (Calendar No. 1). Decided July 30, 2026.
Donyelle M. Black was convicted in 1988 following a bench trial of first-degree felony
murder, MCL 750.316(1)(b); armed robbery, MCL 750.529; and possession of a firearm during
the commission of a felony (felony-firearm), MCL 750.227b. Defendant was 15 years old at the
time of the murder. The trial court sentenced defendant to serve life in prison without the
possibility of parole (LWOP) for felony murder. Following the United States Supreme Court’s
decisions in Miller v Alabama, 567 US 460 (2012), concluding that mandatory LWOP sentences
for juveniles are cruel and unusual punishment under US Const, Am VIII, and Montgomery v
Louisiana, 577 US 190 (2016), holding that the Miller holding is retroactive, the prosecution
moved, pursuant to MCL 769.25 and MCL 769.25a, to reimpose defendant’s LWOP sentence. At
his Miller hearing, defendant presented a forensic psychologist as an expert witness who testified
that defendant had manifested developmental attributes as a teenager that were not typically found
in adolescents, such as a lack of empathy and remorse, along with typical attributes of a 15-year-
old, like impulsivity and immaturity. She opined that these traits were no longer present in
defendant as an adult, which suggested rehabilitation. The prosecution did not present any
witnesses at the hearing, and the trial court entered an order stating that the prosecution did not
bear the burden of proof at the hearing and concluding that life without parole was not a
disproportionate sentence. The court then entered an amended judgment of sentence reimposing
defendant’s LWOP sentence.
Defendant appealed, and while the appeal was pending, the Michigan Supreme Court held
in People v Taylor, 510 Mich 112 (2022), that the prosecution bears the burden of proof at a Miller
hearing. The Court of Appeals vacated defendant’s amended judgment of sentence in light of
Taylor and the parties’ stipulations and remanded to the trial court for a second Miller hearing.
The prosecution moved on remand for the trial court to compel defendant to submit to a
psychological examination by a prosecution expert or, alternatively, to strike the psychological
testimony of defendant’s expert from the first Miller hearing and any reports by defense experts.
The trial court, Cheryl A. Matthews, J., granted the motion. Defendant filed an interlocutory
application for leave to appeal, and the Court of Appeals, O’BRIEN, P.J., and MURRAY and PATEL,
JJ., affirmed. ___ Mich App ___ (December 19, 2024) (Docket No. 367831). Defendant’s
application for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court was granted. ___ Mich ___; 25 NW3d 330
(2025).
In a unanimous opinion by Justice HOOD, the Supreme Court held:
If a defendant indicates an intent to introduce expert psychological evidence at a Miller
hearing, a trial court may compel the defendant to undergo a similar examination by a prosecution expert, consistent with the defendant’s federal and state constitutional rights against self- incrimination, US Const, Am V; Const 1963, art 1, § 17. If the defendant chooses to undergo a psychological examination by a prosecution expert, any evidence obtained during the examination is admissible only as rebuttal and may not be used by the prosecution as part of its case-in-chief.
1. Defendant’s federal and state constitutional rights against self-incrimination were not
violated when the trial court required him to submit to a psychological evaluation conducted by an expert chosen by the prosecution as a precondition to offering his own psychological evidence at his Miller hearing. It is well established that if a defendant does not place their mental status at issue at a trial or a sentencing proceeding, the prosecution’s use of a court-ordered psychological evaluation against the defendant violates the defendant’s constitutional right against self- incrimination. But if a defendant presents expert psychological evidence, the prosecution is permitted to offer evidence obtained during a court-ordered psychological evaluation for the limited purpose of rebuttal. From this principle, it naturally follows that, if a defendant indicates their intent to introduce expert psychological evidence at a proceeding, the trial court may compel the defendant to submit to a psychological evaluation conducted by an expert chosen by the prosecution. Michigan trial courts generally have the authority to order postconviction psychological and psychiatric evaluations for use at sentencing. The Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination attaches at a court-ordered psychiatric examination used for sentencing purposes, but that right does not preclude courts from ordering these evaluations under the parameters set forth here. If compelled psychological evaluations were never permissible for purposes of Miller hearings, as defendant argues, prosecutors would effectively be prohibited from presenting psychological evidence to challenge the defendant’s psychological evidence, which would undermine the adversarial process.
2. If a defendant indicates an intent to introduce expert psychological evidence at a Miller
hearing, the trial court is permitted under the Fifth Amendment to compel the defendant to submit to a court-ordered psychological examination to rebut the defendant’s evidence in kind. A defendant’s mental status is relevant in the Miller context. Resentencing pursuant to Miller requires an assessment of a defendant’s rehabilitative potential, which has an individualized mental component. A defendant’s mental state may also be relevant when assessing other Miller factors, such as the defendant’s immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and consequences, as well as the defendant’s family and home environment. Further, defendants may wish to introduce expert evidence of their mental status to refute claims that they lack the capacity for rehabilitation or to show that the attributes of their youth that led to the commission of the sentencing offense are no longer present.
3. To the extent that the trial court sua sponte incorporated the record of the first Miller
hearing into the record of the second Miller hearing, the order was improper. If defendant chooses to introduce his own expert psychological evidence and, by extension, chooses to submit to a compelled psychological examination, the results of such an examination would not be admissible during the prosecution’s case-in-chief. Rather, the prosecution would be permitted to introduce such eviden
Why this matters
If a defendant intends to introduce expert psychological evidence at a Miller hearing, the trial court may compel a psychological examination by a prosecution expert, and any resulting evidence is admissible only as rebuttal, not in the prosecution’s case-in-chief.