Appeal from Wayne, John D. O'Hair, J.
Bashara, P. J., and D. F. Walsh and W. S. White,* JJ.
1. -- Defense of Insanity -- Presumptions -- Evidence -- Reasonable Doubt -- Burden of Proof -- Prosecutors.
A criminal defendant is presumed sane, but if the issue of insanity is properly raised evidence to rebut the presumption may be introduced; the prosecution must then assume the burden of proving sanity beyond a reasonable doubt, but it is not required to introduce additional or specific evidence contrary to that raised by the defense.
2. Witnesses -- Expert Witnesses -- Weight of Evidence -- Finders of Fact -- Delegation of Authority.
The weight and credibility to be given to expert testimony rests with the fact finder and cannot be delegated under Michigan law.
3. -- Sentences -- Statutes -- Minimum Term.
A defendant's minimum sentence may not exceed 2/3 of the maximum (MCLA 769.8; MSA 28.1080).
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Bashara
Paul D. Duffy, Jr., was convicted of kidnapping and rape. Defendant appeals.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of kidnapping and rape contrary to MCLA 750.349; MSA 28.581, and MCLA 750.520; MSA 28.788, and appeals.
The facts are not in dispute. Defendant appeared in the complainant's backyard, asking permission to look for his son's cat. Permission granted, the complainant returned to bed. Shortly thereafter, she heard noises in her kitchen and found the defendant there with a knife. He forced her to put on a jacket and bound her hands. The defendant drove the complaining witness to a wooded area where by his own admission he forced intercourse upon her.
The Livonia Police had been alerted by the complainant's son. They spotted the defendant returning the complainant to her home, a chase ensued resulting in defendant's arrest.
At trial defendant admitted perpetrating the acts described in the information but raised the defense that he was insane at the time of the commission of the offenses. Defendant filed proper notice of his intent to raise the defense, and two eminently qualified psychiatrists were appointed to examine him. Both doctors concurred in their findings. They testified that the defendant could recognize the difference between right from wrong, but he could not control his psyche to such a degree as to prohibit him ...