THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE
Act 328 of 1931
750.209 Offensive or injurious substance or compound; placing with intent to injure, coerce, or interfere with person or property; violation; penalties.
Sec. 209.
(1) A person who places an offensive or injurious substance or compound in or near to any real or personal property with intent to wrongfully injure or coerce another person or to injure the property or business of another person, or to interfere with another person's use, management, conduct, or control of his or her business or property is guilty of a crime as follows:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in subdivisions (b) to (e), the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 15 years or a fine of not more than $10,000.00, or both.
(b) If the violation damages the property of another person, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 20 years or a fine of not more than $15,000.00, or both.
(c) If the violation causes physical injury to another individual, other than serious impairment of a body function, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 25 years or a fine of not more than $20,000.00, or both.
(d) If the violation causes serious impairment of a body function to another individual, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for life or for any term of years or a fine of not more than $25,000.00, or both.
(e) Except as provided in sections 25 and 25a of chapter IX of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 769.25 and 769.25a, if the violation causes the death of another individual, the person is guilty of a felony and shall be imprisoned for life without eligibility for parole and may be fined not more than $40,000.00, or both.
(2) A person who places an offensive or injurious substance or compound in or near to any real or personal property with the intent to annoy or alarm any person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $3,000.00, or both.
History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;-- Am. 1937, Act 41, Eff. Oct. 29, 1937 ;-- CL 1948, 750.209 ;-- Am. 1967, Act 177, Eff. Nov. 2, 1967 ;-- Am. 1998, Act 208, Eff. Oct. 1, 1998 ;-- Am. 2003, Act 257, Eff. Jan. 1, 2004 ;-- Am. 2014, Act 23, Imd. Eff. Mar. 4, 2014
FormerLaw Notes:
See section 4 of Act 119 of 1927, being CL 1929, § 17107.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
14
cases, 1983–2020 · leading case:
People v. Hill, 667 N.W.2d 78 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
People v. Hill, 667 N.W.2d 78 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 9× “Here, it is unnecessary to determine if our Legislature intended multiple punishments because defendant’s guilt under MCL 750.209 and MCL 750.210 does not arise out of the same acts or conduct, which is required for a successful double jeopardy claim.”
People v. Turner, 332 N.W.2d 626 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983).
“284 (assault with intent to rob while armed), MCL 750.209; MSA 28.406 (placing explosives with intent to destroy and cause injury to another person), MCL 750.”
People of Michigan v. Lakeisha Nicole Gunn (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 6× “73(1) (“Count I”), and placing an offensive or injurious substance in or near real property with intent to injure or damage property, MCL 750.209(1)(b) (“Count II”). The trial court originally sentenced defendant, as a third habitual offender, MCL 769.”
People of Michigan v. Lakeisha Nicole Gunn (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 6× “73(1) (“Count I”), and placing an offensive or injurious substance in or near real property with intent to injure or damage property, MCL 750.209(1)(b) (“Count II”). The trial court originally sentenced defendant, as a third habitual offender, MCL 769.”
People of Michigan v. Lakeisha Nicole Gunn (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 5× “And, because gasoline qualifies as an offensive and injurious substance within the meaning of MCL 750.209(1), People v Hill, 257 Mich App 126, 128, 147-149 ; 667 NW2d 78 (2003), the evidence supports defendant’s conviction under MCL 750.”
Fomby v. Rewerts (E.D. Mich. 2020).
· cites it 2× “73 (1), and for placing an offensive substance with intent to injure or cause damage, in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.209 (1)(b). The habeas petition raises four claims: (1) the trial court erred in failing to grant a mistrial after a juror had contact with a witness, (2)…”
People of Michigan v. Salam Al-Sawadi (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“Defendant and his son, Abass Al-Sawadi, were both charged with first-degree arson, preparing to burn real property, and placing an injurious substance near property, MCL 750.209, for the burning of a house on Rutland Street in Detroit on July 29, 2015.”
People of Michigan v. Bobby Fomby (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“On May 18, 2015, at about 3:00 a.m., a Molotov cocktail was thrown through a window at defendant’s sister’s house.”
People of Michigan v. Bobby Fomby (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“On May 18, 2015, at about 3:00 a.m., a Molotov cocktail was thrown through a window at defendant’s sister’s house.”
People of Michigan v. Michael Marko Katranis (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“The trial court sentenced defendant to serve concurrent prison terms of 3 to 15 years for the placing an injurious substance on personal property conviction and 1 to 5 years for the arson conviction.”
People of Michigan v. Lakeisha Nicole Gunn (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“In Gunn’s initial appeal, we held that the trial court had mistakenly sentenced Gunn for a crime she did not commit (placing explosives on or near property, MCL 750.”
People of Michigan v. Lakeisha Nicole Gunn (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“In Gunn’s initial appeal, we held that the trial court had mistakenly sentenced Gunn for a crime she did not commit (placing explosives on or near property, MCL 750.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.209(1) — 2 cases
People v. Hill, 667 N.W.2d 78 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
“Here, it is unnecessary to determine if our Legislature intended multiple punishments because defendant’s guilt under MCL 750.209 and MCL 750.210 does not arise out of the same acts or conduct, which is required for a successful double jeopardy claim.”
People of Michigan v. Lakeisha Nicole Gunn (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
“And, because gasoline qualifies as an offensive and injurious substance within the meaning of MCL 750.209(1), People v Hill, 257 Mich App 126, 128, 147-149 ; 667 NW2d 78 (2003), the evidence supports defendant’s conviction under MCL 750.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.209(1)(a) — 1 case
People of Michigan v. Michael Marko Katranis (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“The trial court sentenced defendant to serve concurrent prison terms of 3 to 15 years for the placing an injurious substance on personal property conviction and 1 to 5 years for the arson conviction.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.209(1)(b) — 9 cases
People of Michigan v. Lakeisha Nicole Gunn (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“73(1) (“Count I”), and placing an offensive or injurious substance in or near real property with intent to injure or damage property, MCL 750.209(1)(b) (“Count II”). The trial court originally sentenced defendant, as a third habitual offender, MCL 769.”
People of Michigan v. Lakeisha Nicole Gunn (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“73(1) (“Count I”), and placing an offensive or injurious substance in or near real property with intent to injure or damage property, MCL 750.209(1)(b) (“Count II”). The trial court originally sentenced defendant, as a third habitual offender, MCL 769.”
People of Michigan v. Lakeisha Nicole Gunn (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
“And, because gasoline qualifies as an offensive and injurious substance within the meaning of MCL 750.209(1), People v Hill, 257 Mich App 126, 128, 147-149 ; 667 NW2d 78 (2003), the evidence supports defendant’s conviction under MCL 750.”
People of Michigan v. Bobby Fomby (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“On May 18, 2015, at about 3:00 a.m., a Molotov cocktail was thrown through a window at defendant’s sister’s house.”
People of Michigan v. Bobby Fomby (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“On May 18, 2015, at about 3:00 a.m., a Molotov cocktail was thrown through a window at defendant’s sister’s house.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.209(l)(b) — 1 case
People v. Hill, 667 N.W.2d 78 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
“Here, it is unnecessary to determine if our Legislature intended multiple punishments because defendant’s guilt under MCL 750.209 and MCL 750.210 does not arise out of the same acts or conduct, which is required for a successful double jeopardy claim.”
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.