THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE
Act 328 of 1931
750.117 Public officer; bribery.
Sec. 117.
Bribery of public officer—Any person who shall corruptly give, offer or promise to any public officer, agent, servant or employe, after the election or appointment of such public officer, agent, servant or employe and either before or after such public officer, agent, servant or employe shall have been qualified or shall take his seat, any gift, gratuity, money, property or other valuable thing, the intent or purpose of which is to influence the act, vote, opinion, decision or judgment of such public officer, agent, servant or employe, or his action on any matter, question, cause or proceeding, which may be pending or may by law be brought before him in his public capacity, or the purpose and intent of which is to influence any act or omission relating to any public duty of such officer, agent, servant or employe, shall be guilty of a felony.
History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;-- CL 1948, 750.117
FormerLaw Notes:
See section 7 of Ch. 156 of R.S. 1846, being CL 1857, § 5826; CL 1871, § 7659; How., § 9241; CL 1897, § 11311; CL 1915, § 14978; and CL 1929, § 16569.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
14
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1960–2024 · leading case:
People v. Davis, 290 N.W.2d 366 (Mich. 1980).
People v. Davis, 290 N.W.2d 366 (Mich. 1980).
· cites it 5× “Williams’ conduct in promising any gratuity whatever to Davis to influence his decision to omit his duty was unlawful under MCL 750.117; MSA 28.312. 8 The Legislature’s decision to create a separate, more specific section of the same Chapter of the Penal Code (XVII) to address…”
People v. Hana, 504 N.W.2d 166 (Mich. 1993).
· cites it 2× “[3] Also arrested were defendant's brother and two others who had arranged with Officer Putnam to purchase twelve ounces of cocaine.”
Agan v. Vaughn, 119 F.3d 1538 (11th Cir. 1997).
“within the official discretion of a public servant ----”) (emphasis added); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 750.117 (West 1991) *1543 (“Any person who shall corruptly give, offer or promise to any public officer .”
People v. Jacoboni, 190 N.W.2d 720 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).
· cites it 2× “773); Count II, the bribery of a public official, MCLA § 750.117 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.312); and Count III, the receipt of a bribe by a public official, MCLA § 750.”
In the Matter of Callanan, 355 N.W.2d 69 (Mich. 1984).
“, Richard Debs, and Sam Qaoud, codefendants, to commit offenses against the United States Government, including, among other things, acts involving the acceptance of bribes chargeable under Michigan state law as found in MCL 750.117 and 750.118 [MSA 28.312 and 28.”
People v. Ritholz, 103 N.W.2d 481 (Mich. 1960).
“We find no substantial error in the case and no need to discuss additional claims of error. Affirmed. Dethmers, C. J., and Kelly, Black, and Edwards, JJ.”
People v. Patterson, 228 N.W.2d 804 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975).
“On March 22, 1973 defendant-appellant, Ruth Patterson, was found guilty by jury verdict of bribing two police officers in violation of MCLA 750.117; MSA 28.312. She was sentenced on April 12, 1973 to a term of from two to four years in prison.”
People v. Rowan, 255 N.W.2d 791 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 2× “He was sentenced to a prison term of from two to four years on each bribery count and two to five years on each count of obstruction of justice, all sentences to run concurrently.”
People v. Szymanski, 230 N.W.2d 17 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975).
“354(1) and MCLA 750.117; MSA 28.312. A jury convicted defendants of this charge.”
Lento Law Grp., P.C. v. Lewis (E.D. Mich. 2024).
“§ 750.117. The suggestion that a council member could be bribed by a free polo shirt falls into the category of “rhetorical hyperbole,” “meant to express strong disapproval rather than an accusation of criminal activity or actual misconduct.”
People v. Lombardi, 164 N.W.2d 738 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968).
“’ Defendant was tried on an information which charged bribery in count 1, CL 1948 § 750.117 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.312), and' conspiracy to commit bribery in count 2.”
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.