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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1436 (2026)

Witness; competency as affected by religion.

✓ 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


600.1436 Witness; competency as affected by religion.

Sec. 1436.

    No person may be deemed incompetent as a witness, in any court, matter or proceeding, on account of his opinions on the subject of religion. No witness may be questioned in relation to his opinions on religion, either before or after he is sworn.

History: 1961, Act 236, Eff. Jan. 1, 1963

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1969–2022 · leading case: Abdul Nahshal v. Fremont Ins. Co., 922 N.W.2d 662 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Abdul Nahshal v. Fremont Ins. Co., 922 N.W.2d 662 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 5× “USING RELIGION TO ENHANCE WITNESS CREDIBILITY We begin our analysis with defendant's claim that it is entitled to a new trial based on the trial court's erroneous admission of testimony regarding the religious beliefs or opinions of plaintiff and his wife in violation of MCL…”
People v. McLaughlin, 672 N.W.2d 860 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “Defendant contends that MCL 600.1436 prohibits the questioning of a witness regarding his religious beliefs.”
People v. Dobek, 732 N.W.2d 546 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “We see no problem with any questions regarding whether defendant talked to other witnesses about testimony because it bore on matters of credibility and bias without offending any attorney-client privilege.”
People v. Bouchee, 253 N.W.2d 626 (Mich. 1977). · cites it 6× “II The defendant asserts that certain questions put to him by the trial court during the prosecutor's cross-examination, and certain questions asked of *258 his witness, Reverend Amos Williams, constituted improper inquiry relating "to his opinions on religion" contrary to MCLA…”
People v. Vasher, 537 N.W.2d 168 (Mich. 1995). · cites it 4× “MCL 600.1436; MSA 27A.1436 provides: "No witness may be questioned in relation to his opinions on religion, either before or after he is sworn.”
Donkers v. Kovach, 745 N.W.2d 154 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “" MCL 600.1436 provides: "No person may be deemed incompetent as a witness, in any court, matter or proceeding, on account of his opinions on the subject of religion.”
People v. Leshaj, 641 N.W.2d 872 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 3× “” Throughout her testimony, the complainant, without elicitation, injected statements of her religious opinions.”
People v. Hall, 215 N.W.2d 166 (Mich. 1974). · cites it 3× “Whether the prosecutor denied appellant a fair trial by deliberately cross-examining as to his belief in God in violation of MCLA 600.1436; MSA 27A.1436. 2. Whether appellant was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial.”
People v. Wells, 267 N.W.2d 448 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 4× “Such questions are also in direct violation of MCLA 600.1436; MSA 27A.1436, the pertinent portion of which reads: "No witness may be questioned in relation to his opinions on religion, either before or after he is sworn.”
People v. Falkner, 193 N.W.2d 178 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971). · cites it 4× “We are not persuaded that the single reference *108 to the Black Muslims, during the questioning of Phillip Smith, contravened the proscription of MCLA § 600.1436 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27A.”
People v. Calloway, 427 N.W.2d 194 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “In People v Hall, 391 Mich 175, 179-183 ; 215 NW2d 166 (1974), the Supreme Court held that a prosecutor's question to the defendant inquiring whether he believed in a Supreme Being, although it was merely a reminder to the defendant that he was under oath, and despite no…”
People v. Theodore Jones, 267 N.W.2d 433 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “Defendant contends that the prosecution's cross-examination of himself and these defense witnesses violated MCLA 600.1436; MSA 27A.1436, which reads: "No person may be deemed incompetent as a witness *515 in any court, matter or proceeding, on account of his opinions on the…”
Show all 30 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.