People v. Garland

(to reverse). I concur in the result reached by my Brother Levin but do not agree that the discussion in the introductory matter or Sections I, II, and III of his opinion is necessary to reaching the proper result in this case.

As my Brother Levin notes, this Court stated less than three years ago in People v Martin, 386 Mich 407, 425; 192 NW2d 215 (1971):

"We conclude that a psychiatrist who conducts such a forensic psychiatric examination may not be called to testify in the criminal triál if there is an objection to the admission of such testimony by defendant.”

There is no need to consider…