REVISED JUDICATURE ACT OF 1961
Act 236 of 1961
600.2159 Parties as witnesses; depositions; comment on failure of criminal defendant to testify.
Sec. 2159.
On the trial of any issue joined, or in any matter, suit or proceeding, in any court, or on any inquiry arising in any suit or proceeding in any court, or before any officer or person having by law, or by consent of parties, authority to hear, receive, and examine evidence, the parties to any such suit or proceeding named in the record, and persons for whose benefit such suit or proceeding is prosecuted, or defended, may be witnesses therein in their own behalf or otherwise, in the same manner as other witnesses, except as hereinafter otherwise provided; and the deposition of any such party or person may be taken and used in evidence under the rules and statutes governing depositions, and any such party or person may be proceeded against and compelled to attend and testify, as is provided by law for other witnesses. No person shall be disqualified as a witness in any civil or criminal case or proceeding by reason of his interest in the event of the same as a party or otherwise or by reason of his having been convicted of any crime; but such interest or conviction may be shown for the purpose of affecting his credibility. A defendant in any criminal case or proceeding shall only at his own request be deemed a competent witness, and his neglect to testify shall not create any presumption against him, nor shall the court permit any reference or comment to be made to or upon such neglect.
History: 1961, Act 236, Eff. Jan. 1, 1963
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
81
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1967–2025 · leading case:
People v. Jackson, 217 N.W.2d 22 (Mich. 1974).
People v. Jackson, 217 N.W.2d 22 (Mich. 1974).
· cites it 8× “See, 1881 PA 245 , relevant provisions now found in MCLA 600.2159; MSA 27A.2159. I think that it is now time for this Court to recognize a fact that has been well illustrated by commentators and confirmed by the facts in the present case.”
People v. Worden, 284 N.W.2d 159 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979).
· cites it 4× “He now argues that the trial judge abused his discretion by deciding to admit evidence of his convictions for impeachment purposes, and that this abuse of discretion infringed upon his rights to testify and to present an affirmative defense.”
People v. Garth, 287 N.W.2d 216 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979).
· cites it 4× “See MCL 600.2159; MSA 27A.2159 and MCL 600.2158; MSA 27A.”
People v. Clary, 833 N.W.2d 308 (Mich. 2013).
· cites it 2× “5 US Const, Am V; Const 1963, art 1, § 17; MCL 600.2159. 3 evidentiary analysis, [is] a question that must be answered whenever the prosecutor seeks to elicit a defendant’s .”
People v. Mann, 792 N.W.2d 53 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
“Fields, 450 Mich at 108-109 ; MCL 600.2159. People v Buckey, 424 Mich 1, 14 ; 378 NW2d 432 (1985).”
People v. Renno, 219 N.W.2d 422 (Mich. 1974).
· cites it 3× “) In 1881, MCLA 600.2159; MSA 27A.2159 was passed as 1881 PA 245 .”
People v. Russell, 183 N.W.2d 845 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970).
· cites it 4× “This is not a case of challenging a defendant for a prior exercise of silence, but rather a challenge based on a prior inconsistent statement.”
People v. Falkner, 209 N.W.2d 193 (Mich. 1973).
· cites it 2× “) The following provision, MCLA 600.2159; MSA 27A.2159 likewise speaks of convictions: "On the trial of any issue joined, or in any matter, suit or proceeding, in any court, or on any inquiry arising in any suit or proceeding in any court, or before any officer or person having…”
People v. Farrar, 193 N.W.2d 363 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).
· cites it 2× “” MCLA §600.2159 (Stat Ann 1962 Eev § 27A.2159); originally enacted as PA 1881, No 245; words “civil or” added by PA 1915, No 314, C 17, § 64 (emphasis supplied).”
People v. Strickland, 259 N.W.2d 232 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 2× “The defendant then asked the judge to exercise his discretionary power to prevent the prosecutor from impeaching the defendant with evidence of two prior felony convictions.”
People v. Fields, 538 N.W.2d 356 (Mich. 1995).
“Defendant did not elect to rely on the presumption of innocence but, rather, testified in great detail how Ms. Fields was shot. As LaFave and Israel note, "[t]he prohibition upon comment extends no farther than the reach of the Fifth Amendment privilege .”
People v. Hardesty, 362 N.W.2d 787 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 2× “MCL 600.2159; MSA 27A.2159; US Const, Ams V, VI, XIV, Const 1963, art 1, § 17, 20; Guilty Plea Cases, 395 Mich 96, 120 ; 235 NW2d 132 (1975).”
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.