Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 28 / Act 295 of 1994
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 28.723a (2026)

Hearing to determine if individual exempt from registration.

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

SEX OFFENDERS REGISTRATION ACT


Act 295 of 1994


28.723a Hearing to determine if individual exempt from registration.

Sec. 3a.

    (1) If an individual pleads guilty to or is found guilty of a listed offense or is adjudicated as a juvenile as being responsible for a listed offense but alleges that he or she is not required to register under this act because section 2(t)(v) or (vi) applies or section 2(v)(iv) applies, and the prosecuting attorney disputes that allegation, the court shall conduct a hearing on the matter before sentencing or disposition to determine whether the individual is required to register under this act.

    (2) The individual has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence in a hearing under this section that his or her conduct falls within the exceptions described in subsection (1) and that he or she is therefore not required to register under this act.

    (3) The rules of evidence, except for those pertaining to privileges and protections set forth in section 520j of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.520j, do not apply to a hearing under this section.

    (4) The prosecuting attorney shall give the victim notice of the date, time, and place of the hearing.

    (5) The victim of the offense has the following rights in a hearing under this section:

    (a) To submit a written statement to the court.

    (b) To attend the hearing and to make a written or oral statement to the court.

    (c) To refuse to attend the hearing.

    (d) To attend the hearing but refuse to testify or make a statement at the hearing.

    (6) The court's decision excusing or requiring the individual to register is a final order of the court and may be appealed by the prosecuting attorney or the individual as a matter of right.

    (7) This section applies to criminal and juvenile cases pending on July 1, 2011 and to criminal and juvenile cases brought on and after that date.

    

    

History: Add. 2011, Act 17, Imd. Eff. Apr. 12, 2011 ;-- Am. 2020, Act 295, Eff. Mar. 24, 2021

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2012–2024 · leading case: People v. Pinkney, 912 N.W.2d 535 (Mich. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Pinkney, 912 N.W.2d 535 (Mich. 2018). “468 (criminalizing conduct in Subsection 1 and providing, in Subsection 2, that "a person that is found guilty of a violation of this act shall be required to reimburse the appropriate governmental agency"); MCL 28.723a(1) ("If an individual pleads guilty to or is found guilty…”
In re Tiemann, 297 Mich. App. 250 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 3× “After the entry of the order of disposition, there was a consent hearing in the trial court pursuant to MCL 28.723a. The trial court then held that Tiemann had not met his burden of establishing consent by the victim and that he was therefore required to register under SORA.”
In Re Eian Nelson (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 3× “Respondent then requested a hearing under MCL 28.723a to determine whether he was exempted from the registration requirement of SORA.”
People of Michigan v. Bryan Michael Rozengard (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “Initially, we agree with defendant that he was entitled to seek a hearing, pursuant to MCL 28.723a(1), to assert that he was not required to register as a sex offender because of the applicability of MCL 28.”
People of Michigan v. Bryan Michael Rozengard (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “Initially, we agree with defendant that he was entitled to seek a hearing, pursuant to MCL 28.723a(1), to assert that he was not required to register as a sex offender because of the applicability of MCL 28.”
in Re Micah Melchizedek Daniel (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “But clearly respondent did not meet his burden of proving an exemption, as was his obligation under MCL 28.723a(1). The lower court concluded that SORA had not contemplated the situation before it and impermissibly relieved respondent of this burden.”
in Re Micah Melchizedek Daniel (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “But clearly respondent did not meet his burden of proving an exemption, as was his obligation under MCL 28.723a(1). The lower court concluded that SORA had not contemplated the situation before it and impermissibly relieved respondent of this burden.”
People of Michigan v. Stephen Michael Bieszka (Mich. 2019). · cites it 2× “722(w)(iv); MCL 28.723a. On remand, the trial court shall consider all of the information that was presented at the hearing on the defendant’s petition, including the text messages from the complainant, and issue a written decision excusing or requiring the defendant to…”
People v. Bieszka, 921 N.W.2d 541 (Mich. 2019). · cites it 2× “722(w)( iv ) ; MCL 28.723a. On remand, the trial court shall consider all of the information that was presented at the hearing on the defendant's petition, including the text messages from the complainant, and issue a written decision excusing or requiring the defendant to…”
People of Michigan v. Casey David Ward (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). “” MCL 28.723a(1). A “listed offense” means a “tier I, tier II, or tier III offense.”
People of Michigan v. Dylan Taylor Misiewicz (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). “See MCL 28.723a (requiring the trial court to hold a hearing only if the prosecuting attorney disputes the defendant’s allegations).”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 28.723a(1) — 7 cases
People v. Pinkney, 912 N.W.2d 535 (Mich. 2018). “468 (criminalizing conduct in Subsection 1 and providing, in Subsection 2, that "a person that is found guilty of a violation of this act shall be required to reimburse the appropriate governmental agency"); MCL 28.723a(1) ("If an individual pleads guilty to or is found guilty…”
People of Michigan v. Bryan Michael Rozengard (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “Initially, we agree with defendant that he was entitled to seek a hearing, pursuant to MCL 28.723a(1), to assert that he was not required to register as a sex offender because of the applicability of MCL 28.”
People of Michigan v. Bryan Michael Rozengard (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “Initially, we agree with defendant that he was entitled to seek a hearing, pursuant to MCL 28.723a(1), to assert that he was not required to register as a sex offender because of the applicability of MCL 28.”
in Re Micah Melchizedek Daniel (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “But clearly respondent did not meet his burden of proving an exemption, as was his obligation under MCL 28.723a(1). The lower court concluded that SORA had not contemplated the situation before it and impermissibly relieved respondent of this burden.”
in Re Micah Melchizedek Daniel (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “But clearly respondent did not meet his burden of proving an exemption, as was his obligation under MCL 28.723a(1). The lower court concluded that SORA had not contemplated the situation before it and impermissibly relieved respondent of this burden.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 28.723a(2) — 1 case
In Re Eian Nelson (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “Respondent then requested a hearing under MCL 28.723a to determine whether he was exempted from the registration requirement of SORA.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 28.723a(5) — 2 cases
in Re Micah Melchizedek Daniel (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “But clearly respondent did not meet his burden of proving an exemption, as was his obligation under MCL 28.723a(1). The lower court concluded that SORA had not contemplated the situation before it and impermissibly relieved respondent of this burden.”
in Re Micah Melchizedek Daniel (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “But clearly respondent did not meet his burden of proving an exemption, as was his obligation under MCL 28.723a(1). The lower court concluded that SORA had not contemplated the situation before it and impermissibly relieved respondent of this burden.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 28.723a(6) — 2 cases
People of Michigan v. Stephen Michael Bieszka (Mich. 2019). “722(w)(iv); MCL 28.723a. On remand, the trial court shall consider all of the information that was presented at the hearing on the defendant’s petition, including the text messages from the complainant, and issue a written decision excusing or requiring the defendant to…”
People v. Bieszka, 921 N.W.2d 541 (Mich. 2019). “722(w)( iv ) ; MCL 28.723a. On remand, the trial court shall consider all of the information that was presented at the hearing on the defendant's petition, including the text messages from the complainant, and issue a written decision excusing or requiring the defendant to…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 28.723a(7) — 1 case
In re Tiemann, 297 Mich. App. 250 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “After the entry of the order of disposition, there was a consent hearing in the trial court pursuant to MCL 28.723a. The trial court then held that Tiemann had not met his burden of establishing consent by the victim and that he was therefore required to register under SORA.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 28.723a(l) — 1 case
In re Tiemann, 297 Mich. App. 250 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “After the entry of the order of disposition, there was a consent hearing in the trial court pursuant to MCL 28.723a. The trial court then held that Tiemann had not met his burden of establishing consent by the victim and that he was therefore required to register under SORA.”
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.