Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 600 / Act 236 of 1961
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1354 (2026)

Noncompliance with chapter as grounds for requesting continuance or claiming invalidity of verdict; data processing error as grounds for questioning list selected.

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

REVISED JUDICATURE ACT OF 1961


Act 236 of 1961


600.1354 Noncompliance with chapter as grounds for requesting continuance or claiming invalidity of verdict; data processing error as grounds for questioning list selected.

Sec. 1354.

    (1) Failure to comply with the provisions of this chapter shall not be grounds for a continuance nor shall it affect the validity of a jury verdict unless the party requesting the continuance or claiming invalidity has made timely objection and unless the party demonstrates actual prejudice to his cause and unless the noncompliance is substantial. An objection made at the day of a scheduled trial shall not be considered timely unless the objection, with the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been made at an earlier time.

    (2) If a data processing error occurs, that error shall not constitute grounds for questioning the entire list selected but only the specific person affected.

History: Add. 1969, Act 326, Eff. Sept. 1, 1969 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 11, Imd. Eff. Feb. 8, 1978

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1971–2026 · leading case: People v. Miller, 759 N.W.2d 850 (Mich. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Miller, 759 N.W.2d 850 (Mich. 2008). · cites it 44× “2d 468 (1948); (2) whether DeHaven was wrongly decided or has been superseded by MCL 600.1354(1); (3) whether a criminal defendant must establish actual prejudice pursuant to MCL 600.”
People v. Oliphant, 250 N.W.2d 443 (Mich. 1976). · cites it 4× “Thus, the objection, exhaustively discussed and denied on the merits by the trial court, ought to have been rejected as not timely under MCLA 600.1354; MSA 27A.1354. We decline to disturb the jury verdict on this point.”
People v. Hubbard, 552 N.W.2d 493 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “Accordingly, we decline to disturb the trial court’s determination that defendant’s challenge could not have been made earlier than during voir dire and that defendant’s objection was timely made within the meaning of MCL 600.1354; MSA 27A.1354. People v Oliphant, 399 Mich 472,…”
Froede v. Holland Ladder & Mfg. Co., 523 N.W.2d 849 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 3× “MCL 600.1354(1); MSA 27A.1354(1); Hunt, supra, p 64 .”
Charles E. Oliphant v. Theodore Koehler, Warden, Marquette House of Corr. & Branch Prison, 594 F.2d 547 (6th Cir. 1979). · cites it 2× “Refusing to consider the merits of the claim, the Court stated: 62 We note that defendant first raised this challenge on the first day of his second trial when the basis for the objection had been apparent for some time.”
United States v. Ronald Driscoll, 970 F.2d 1472 (6th Cir. 1992). “” Mich.Comp. Laws Ann. § 600.1354(1); see also People v.”
Haberkorn v. Chrysler Corp., 533 N.W.2d 373 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). “Under MCL 600.1354; MSA 27A.1354, failure to comply with chapter 13 of the Revised Judicature Act, concerning jurors, does not affect the validity of the jury verdict unless a party makes a timely objection, demonstrates actual prejudice, and shows that noncompliance was…”
Oliphant v. Koehler, 451 F. Supp. 1305 (W.D. Mich. 1978). “§ 600.1354, M.S.A. § 27A.1354, which states in relevant part: “An objection made at the day of a scheduled trial shall not be considered timely unless the objection, with the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been made at an earlier time.”
People v. Carey, 312 N.W.2d 205 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). “However, MCL 600.1354; MSA 27A.1354 indicates to the contrary.”
People v. Morgan, 375 N.W.2d 757 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985). “Even if defendant had shown a violation of these rules, defendant has failed to show any prejudice as required by MCL 600.1354; MSA 27A.1354. Affirmed.”
People v. Gray, 207 N.W.2d 161 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973). “MCLA 600.1354; MSA 27A.1354. *646 Nor has there been any demonstration of a systematic and intentional exclusion of a particular group or class of persons from the list of eligible jurors.”
People v. Gratz, 192 N.W.2d 304 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971). “” MOLA 1971 Oum Supp § 600.1354 (Stat Ann 1971 Cum Supp § 27A-.”
Show all 29 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1354(1) — 16 cases
People v. Miller, 759 N.W.2d 850 (Mich. 2008). “2d 468 (1948); (2) whether DeHaven was wrongly decided or has been superseded by MCL 600.1354(1); (3) whether a criminal defendant must establish actual prejudice pursuant to MCL 600.”
Froede v. Holland Ladder & Mfg. Co., 523 N.W.2d 849 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994). “MCL 600.1354(1); MSA 27A.1354(1); Hunt, supra, p 64 .”
United States v. Ronald Driscoll, 970 F.2d 1472 (6th Cir. 1992). “” Mich.Comp. Laws Ann. § 600.1354(1); see also People v.”
People v. Hubbard, 552 N.W.2d 493 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996). “Accordingly, we decline to disturb the trial court’s determination that defendant’s challenge could not have been made earlier than during voir dire and that defendant’s objection was timely made within the meaning of MCL 600.1354; MSA 27A.1354. People v Oliphant, 399 Mich 472,…”
People v. Miller, 747 N.W.2d 874 (Mich. 2008).
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.