Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 168 / Act 116 of 1954
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.937 (2026)

Forgery; penalty.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

MICHIGAN ELECTION LAW


Act 116 of 1954


168.937 Forgery; penalty.

Sec. 937.

    Any person found guilty of forgery under the provisions of this act shall, unless herein otherwise provided, be punished by a fine not exceeding $1,000.00, or by imprisonment in the state prison for a term not exceeding 5 years, or by both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court.

History: 1954, Act 116, Eff. June 1, 1955

PopularName Notes:

Election Code
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2015–2024 · leading case: People v. Hall, 880 N.W.2d 785 (Mich. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Hall, 880 N.W.2d 785 (Mich. 2016). · cites it 40× “At issue is whether defendant may be bound over to circuit court on felony charges for committing forgery under MCL 168.937, or whether the prosecution was limited to proceeding *449 with misdemeanor charges under MCL 168.”
People v. Pinkney, 891 N.W.2d 891 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 32× “Defendant, Edward Pinkney, was convicted by a jury of five counts of election forgery, MCL 168.937, but acquitted of six counts of making a false statement in a certificate-of-recall petition, MCL 168.”
People v. Pinkney, 912 N.W.2d 535 (Mich. 2018). · cites it 11× “**263 The issue in this case is whether defendant can be convicted of election-law forgery under MCL 168.937. The Court of Appeals upheld defendant's convictions under that provision, holding that MCL 168.”
Edward Pinkney v. State of Michigan (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 8× “The crux of plaintiff’s claims is that his due process rights under the Michigan Constitution were violated when he was charged, convicted, imprisoned, and subject to parole supervision for a violation of MCL 168.937[2] because the Michigan Supreme Court later concluded that…”
People of Michigan v. Sherikia Lavette Hawkins (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 6× “Pinkney addressed the issue whether MCL 168.937 constituted a substantive offense or merely a punishment provision.”
People of Michigan v. James Donald Holkeboer (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 5× “Pinkney was convicted under MCL 168.937 for altering the dates associated with signatures on a recall petition.”
People of Michigan v. Dennis Albert Wangler (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 3× “The defendant was charged under both MCL 168.937, a felony offense which prohibited the making of a false document under the Michigan Election Law, and MCL 168.”
People of Michigan v. Dennis Albert Wangler (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 3× “The defendant was charged under both MCL 168.937, a felony offense which prohibited the making of a false document under the Michigan Election Law, and MCL 168.”
Edward Pinkney v. Berrien Cnty., Mich. (6th Cir. 2022). · cites it 2× “” MCL § 168.937. Case No. 21-2802, 4 Pinkney v.”
People of Michigan v. Brandon Michael Hall (Mich. 2015). · cites it 2× “The parties shall submit supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order addressing: (1) whether MCL 168.937 and MCL 168.544c conflict such that the defendant’s conduct may only be charged under the latter statute; (2) whether the ‘rule of lenity’ is relevant in…”
People of Michigan v. Brandon Michael Hall (Mich. 2015). · cites it 2× “The parties shall submit supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order addressing: (1) whether MCL 168.937 and MCL 168.544c conflict such that the defendant’s conduct may only be charged under the latter statute; (2) whether the ‘rule of lenity’ is relevant in…”
People of Michigan v. Edward Pinkney (Mich. 2017). “s of the date of this order addressing: (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted evidence under MRE 404(b) that related to the defendant’s political and community activities other than the mayoral recall effort for the purpose of showing the defendant’s…”
Show all 13 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.