Background
Donyelle Michael Black was convicted after a 1988 bench trial of first-degree felony murder, armed robbery, and felony-firearm for crimes committed when he was 15. The trial court imposed life imprisonment without parole for felony murder. After the U.S. Supreme Court held that mandatory juvenile life-without-parole sentences are unconstitutional and that the rule applies retroactively, prosecutors sought to reimpose that sentence under Michigan’s juvenile-sentencing statutes.
At Black’s first Miller resentencing hearing, a defense forensic psychologist testified about his adolescent development, difficult upbringing, maturation, and potential for rehabilitation. The prosecution presented no witnesses, and the trial court reimposed life without parole while stating that the prosecution did not bear the burden of proof. After the Michigan Supreme Court held in another case that prosecutors must rebut the presumption against juvenile life without parole by clear and convincing evidence, the Court of Appeals vacated Black’s sentence and ordered a new hearing.
Before that second hearing, the trial court ordered Black either to undergo an examination by a prosecution-selected psychologist or to forgo his own expert psychological evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed, and Black sought review of whether that condition violated his federal and state rights against self-incrimination and when any resulting evidence could be used.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Supreme Court unanimously held that when a defendant indicates an intent to offer 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. The requirement does not violate the right against self-incrimination because the defendant may decline the examination and forgo such defense evidence, while the prosecution needs a fair opportunity to rebut psychological evidence if the defendant introduces it.
The prosecution may use information obtained or derived from its compelled examination only to rebut psychological evidence actually presented by the defense—not during its case-in-chief. The examination must be a genuine psychological assessment rather than a means of conducting general interrogation, and the rebuttal must remain within the scope of the defense evidence.
The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals but vacated the trial court’s orders insofar as they incorporated evidence from Black’s first hearing or relied on his earlier indication that he intended to present psychological evidence. The second Miller hearing is a distinct proceeding that must begin anew, with the prosecution bearing the burden of rebutting the presumption against life without parole by clear and convincing evidence. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- A juvenile-life defendant who plans to introduce examination-based expert psychological evidence may be required to undergo a comparable examination by a prosecution expert.
- The prosecution cannot use the compelled examination in its case-in-chief; the evidence is available only to rebut psychological evidence the defense ultimately presents.
- The compelled examination and resulting testimony must be narrowly tailored, and the examination cannot serve as a back door for cross-examination or general interrogation.
- A renewed Miller hearing must proceed independently under the correct burden of proof rather than automatically incorporating evidence from a vacated hearing.
Why It Matters
The decision establishes a framework for psychological evidence in Michigan Miller hearings that preserves the adversarial process while limiting the use of compelled statements. Defendants retain the choice whether to present examination-based expert evidence, and prosecutors receive an opportunity for an examination in kind only if that evidence is placed at issue.
The ruling also reinforces that prosecutors seeking juvenile life without parole bear the clear-and-convincing burden and may not use compelled psychological evidence to help carry that initial burden. Justice Kimberly A. Thomas separately emphasized the need to guard the examination’s scope and noted that Michigan courts may need procedures addressing examiner selection, access to reports, and other safeguards.