THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE
Act 328 of 1931
750.149 Compounding or concealing offense; penalty.
Sec. 149.
Any person having knowledge of the commission of any offense punishable with death, or by imprisonment in the state prison, who shall take any money, or any gratuity or reward, or any engagement therefor, upon an agreement or understanding, express or implied, to compound or conceal such offense, or not to prosecute therefor, or not to give evidence thereof, shall, when such offense of which he or she has knowledge was punishable with death, or imprisonment in the state prison for life, is guilty of a felony; and where the offense, of which he or she so had knowledge, was punishable in any other manner, he or she is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year or a fine of not more than $1,000.00.
History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;-- CL 1948, 750.149 ;-- Am. 2002, Act 672, Eff. Mar. 31, 2003
FormerLaw Notes:
See section 20 of Ch. 156 of R.S. 1846, being CL 1857, § 5839; CL 1871, § 7672; How., § 9254; CL 1897, § 11324; CL 1915, § 14991; and CL 1929, § 16582.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1980–2022 · leading case:
People v. Vincent, 288 N.W.2d 670 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980).
People v. Vincent, 288 N.W.2d 670 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 2× “[5] The Michigan statute most closely resembling 18 USC 4 is MCL 750.149; MSA 28.346: "Any person having knowledge of the commission of any offense punishable with death, or by imprisonment in the state prison, who shall take any money, or any gratuity or reward, or any…”
David K. Pratt & Teri D. Pratt v. Brown Mach. Co., a Div. of John Brown, Inc., 855 F.2d 1225 (6th Cir. 1988).
“Reading these two statutes together, the court found that Michigan public policy prohibited: [a]n employer ... [from] impospng] as a condition of employment an agreement, express[] or implied, by an employee with knowledge of the commission of a crime to compound or conceal or…”
Balcom v. Zambon, 658 N.W.2d 156 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 5× “Citing MCL 750.149, Michigan’s compounding statute, the court asked plaintiff, “are you not claiming that Mr.”
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Angelo (E.D. Mich. 2022).
· cites it 2× “) Now, Angelo claims, inter alia, that enforcement of the settlement agreement is tantamount to concealing a crime or stifling a prosecution, which renders the agreement void; Angelo even suggests that following the court’s order would subject him to criminal liability under…”
Linda Rivera v. Svrc Indus. Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
“tatement that “[i]t is well settled that any contract, the consideration of which is to conceal a crime or stifle a prosecution, is necessarily repugnant to public policy, and that a contract whose consideration is contrary to public policy is void,” Case v Smith, 107 Mich 416 ;…”
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.