Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 750 / Act 328 of 1931
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.147b (2026)

Hate crime; violation; penalties; enhanced or alternative sentence.

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

THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE


Act 328 of 1931


750.147b Hate crime; violation; penalties; enhanced or alternative sentence.

Sec. 147b.

    (1) An individual is guilty of a hate crime if that individual, maliciously and intentionally does any of the following to an individual based in whole or in part on an actual or perceived characteristic of that individual listed under subsection (2), regardless of the existence of any other motivating factors:

    (a) Uses force or violence against another individual.

    (b) Causes bodily injury to another individual.

    (c) Stalks another individual.

    (d) Damages, destroys, or defaces any real or personal property of another individual without the consent of the individual.

    (e) Makes a true threat to engage in conduct described under subdivisions (a) to (d).

    (2) The actual or perceived characteristics of another individual referenced under subsection (1) include all of the following:

    (a) Race or color.

    (b) Religion.

    (c) Sex.

    (d) Sexual orientation.

    (e) Gender identity or expression.

    (f) Physical or mental disability.

    (g) Age.

    (h) Ethnicity.

    (i) National origin.

    (j) Association or affiliation with an individual or group of individuals in whole or in part based on a characteristic described under subdivisions (a) to (i).

    (3) An individual who violates this section is guilty of a crime punishable as follows:

    (a) An individual who commits a first violation of subsection (1)(e) is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or by a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both.

    (b) An individual who commits either of the following violations is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $10,000.00, or both:

    (i) A first violation of subsection (1)(a), (b), (c), or (d).

    (ii) A second or subsequent violation of subsection (1)(e).

    (c) An individual who commits any of the following violations is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 10 years or a fine of not more than $15,000.00, or both:

    (i) A second or subsequent violation of subsection (1)(a), (b), (c), or (d).

    (ii) A violation of subsection (1) committed in concert with 1 or more individuals.

    (iii) A violation of subsection (1) committed against a victim who is less than 18 years of age by an individual who is 19 years of age or older.

    (iv) A violation of subsection (1) committed while the individual is in possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon.

    (4) Regardless of the existence or outcome of any criminal prosecution, an individual who suffers injury or property damage as a result of a hate crime may bring a civil cause of action against the individual who commits the offense to secure an injunction, actual damages, including damages for emotional distress, or other appropriate relief. A plaintiff who prevails in a civil action brought pursuant to this section may recover both of the following:

    (a) Damages in the amount of 3 times the actual damages described in this subsection or $25,000.00, whichever is greater.

    (b) Reasonable attorney fees and costs.

    (5) If the prosecuting attorney intends to seek an enhanced sentence based upon the defendant having 1 or more prior convictions under subsection (3)(b)(ii) or (c)(i), the prosecuting attorney shall include on the complaint and information a statement listing the prior conviction or convictions. The existence of the defendant's prior conviction or convictions must be determined by the court, without a jury, at sentencing or at a separate hearing for that purpose before sentencing. The existence of a prior conviction may be established by any evidence relevant for that purpose, including, but not limited to, 1 or more of the following:

    (a) A copy of the judgment of conviction.

    (b) A transcript of a prior trial, plea-taking, or sentencing.

    (c) Information contained in a presentence report.

    (d) The defendant's statement.

    (6) In lieu of or in addition to the penalties described in subsection (3)(a), the court may, if the defendant consents, impose an alternative sentence described under this subsection. In determining the suitability of an alternative sentence described under this subsection, the court shall consider the criminal history of the offender, the impact of the offense on the victim and wider community, the availability of the alternative sentence, and the nature of the violation. An alternative sentence may, if the entity chosen for community service is amenable, include an order requiring the offender to complete a period of community service intended to enhance the offender's understanding of the impact of the offense upon the victim and wider community.

    (7) The court may, if the defendant consents, reduce any penalty imposed under subsection (3)(b) or (c) by not more than 20% and impose an alternative sentence described under this subsection. In determining the suitability of an alternative sentence described under this subsection, the court shall consider the criminal history of the offender, the impact of the offense on the victim and wider community, the availability of the alternative sentence, and the nature of the violation. An alternative sentence may, if the entity chosen for community service is amenable, include an order requiring the offender to complete a period of community service intended to enhance the offender's understanding of the impact of the offense upon the victim and wider community.

    (8) The court may order a sentence imposed for a violation of this section be served consecutively to a sentence imposed for any other crime, including any other violation of law arising out of the same transaction as the violation of this section.

    (9) A criminal penalty provided for under this section may be imposed in addition to any penalty that may be imposed for any other criminal offense arising from the same conduct or for any contempt of court arising from the same conduct.

    (10) This section does not enjoin any individual's exercise of the constitutional right to free speech.

    (11) As used in this section:

    (a) "Reckless disregard" means to consciously disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a statement will be viewed as threatening violence.

    (b) "Stalk" means stalking as that term is defined in section 411h.

    (c) "True threat" means a statement in which the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals, including unlawful property damage to the property of a particular individual or group of individuals. A true threat includes such a communication made with reckless disregard. A speaker is not liable for communicating a true threat if the speaker was unaware that the individual or the group of individuals could regard the statement as threatening violence.

    

History: Add. 1988, Act 371, Eff. Mar. 30, 1989 ;-- Am. 2024, Act 259, Eff. Apr. 2, 2025

PopularName Notes:

Ethnic Intimidation

PopularName Notes:

Hate Crimes
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1993–2025 · leading case: Badiee v. Brighton Area Schs., 695 N.W.2d 521 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Badiee v. Brighton Area Schs., 695 N.W.2d 521 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “12 Plaintiffs filed the instant action on July 16, 2001, and alleged several counts related to what Laser characterized as defendants’ breach of contract, one count that alleged both ethnic intimidation, MCL 750.147b, and ethnic discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights…”
People v. Schutter, 695 N.W.2d 360 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 11× “Defendants were each charged with one count of ethnic intimidation, MCL 750.147b, and one count of assault and battery, MCL 750.”
Austin v. Redford Twp. Police Dep't, 859 F. Supp. 2d 883 (E.D. Mich. 2011). · cites it 7× “There is little ease law applying § 750.147b at all, and an even greater dearth of authority applying the statute in a civil action.”
People v. Stevens, 584 N.W.2d 369 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “Following a jury trial, defendant Stanley Stevens was convicted of ethnic intimidation, MCL 750.147b; MSA 28.344(2). Defendant was sentenced to sixty days in jail.”
Dumas v. Hurley Med. Ctr., 837 F. Supp. 2d 655 (E.D. Mich. 2011). “147b(3). However, Plaintiff has not alleged any injury or property damage, instead alleging only offensive contact and verbal abuse.”
20241121_C368565_29_368565.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 16× “And, in Count III, plaintiffs alleged that the conduct constituted ethnic intimidation in violation of MCL 750.147b, which supported a civil action under MCL 750.”
People v. Richards, 509 N.W.2d 528 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993). “MCL 750.147b; MSA 28.344(2). On February 14, 1991, he was sentenced to one to two years of imprisonment.”
People of Michigan v. Deonton Autez Rogers (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 14× “FACTS The basic facts of this case were set forth in this Court’s prior opinion as follows: This case arises out of an altercation between defendant and the complainant on the night of July 23, 2018.”
People of Michigan v. Deonton Autez Rogers (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 14× “FACTS The basic facts of this case were set forth in this Court’s prior opinion as follows: This case arises out of an altercation between defendant and the complainant on the night of July 23, 2018.”
People of Michigan v. Deonton Autez Rogers (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 9× “I additionally note that in relying on that provision, the trial court found it persuasive that there were two bills pending before the Legislature that would add the terms “gender identification” and “sexual orientation” to MCL 750.147b: 2017 HB 4800 and 2017 SB 0121.”
People of Michigan v. Deonton Autez Rogers (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 9× “I additionally note that in relying on that provision, the trial court found it persuasive that there were two bills pending before the Legislature that would add the terms “gender identification” and “sexual orientation” to MCL 750.147b: 2017 HB 4800 and 2017 SB 0121.”
People of Michigan v. Deonton Autez Rogers (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 8× “Although I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the word “gender” in MCL 750.147b does not include transgender persons,1 I need not dive deeply into an analysis of past or current definitions of “gender” to conclude that defendant’s conduct falls squarely within that…”
Show all 27 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.147b(1) — 4 cases
People of Michigan v. Deonton Autez Rogers (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “FACTS The basic facts of this case were set forth in this Court’s prior opinion as follows: This case arises out of an altercation between defendant and the complainant on the night of July 23, 2018.”
People of Michigan v. Deonton Autez Rogers (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “FACTS The basic facts of this case were set forth in this Court’s prior opinion as follows: This case arises out of an altercation between defendant and the complainant on the night of July 23, 2018.”
Johnson v. Mount Pleasant Pub. Schs. (E.D. Mich. 2024).
People v. MacKin, 730 N.W.2d 476 (Mich. 2007).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.147b(1)(a) — 3 cases
People of Michigan v. Deonton Autez Rogers (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “FACTS The basic facts of this case were set forth in this Court’s prior opinion as follows: This case arises out of an altercation between defendant and the complainant on the night of July 23, 2018.”
People of Michigan v. Deonton Autez Rogers (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “FACTS The basic facts of this case were set forth in this Court’s prior opinion as follows: This case arises out of an altercation between defendant and the complainant on the night of July 23, 2018.”
White 225440 v. Perron (W.D. Mich. 2021).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.147b(3) — 3 cases
Badiee v. Brighton Area Schs., 695 N.W.2d 521 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “12 Plaintiffs filed the instant action on July 16, 2001, and alleged several counts related to what Laser characterized as defendants’ breach of contract, one count that alleged both ethnic intimidation, MCL 750.147b, and ethnic discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights…”
20241121_C368565_29_368565.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “And, in Count III, plaintiffs alleged that the conduct constituted ethnic intimidation in violation of MCL 750.147b, which supported a civil action under MCL 750.”
Johnson v. Mount Pleasant Pub. Schs. (E.D. Mich. 2024).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.147b(l) — 2 cases
Badiee v. Brighton Area Schs., 695 N.W.2d 521 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “12 Plaintiffs filed the instant action on July 16, 2001, and alleged several counts related to what Laser characterized as defendants’ breach of contract, one count that alleged both ethnic intimidation, MCL 750.147b, and ethnic discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights…”
Austin v. Redford Twp. Police Dep't, 859 F. Supp. 2d 883 (E.D. Mich. 2011). “There is little ease law applying § 750.147b at all, and an even greater dearth of authority applying the statute in a civil action.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.147b(l)(a) — 1 case
People v. Schutter, 695 N.W.2d 360 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “Defendants were each charged with one count of ethnic intimidation, MCL 750.147b, and one count of assault and battery, MCL 750.”
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.