THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE
Act 328 of 1931
750.356d Retail fraud in second or third degree.
Sec. 356d.
(1) A person who does any of the following in a store or in its immediate vicinity is guilty of retail fraud in the second degree, a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year or a fine of not more than $2,000.00 or 3 times the value of the difference in price, property stolen, or money or property obtained or attempted to be obtained, whichever is greater, or both imprisonment and a fine:
(a) While a store is open to the public, alters, transfers, removes and replaces, conceals, or otherwise misrepresents the price at which property is offered for sale with the intent not to pay for the property or to pay less than the price at which the property is offered for sale if the resulting difference in price is $200.00 or more but less than $1,000.00.
(b) While a store is open to the public, steals property of the store that is offered for sale at a price of $200.00 or more but less than $1,000.00.
(c) With intent to defraud, obtains or attempts to obtain money or property from the store as a refund or exchange for property that was not paid for and belongs to the store if the amount of money or the value of the property obtained or attempted to be obtained is $200.00 or more but less than $1,000.00.
(2) A person who violates subsection (4) and who has 1 or more prior convictions for committing or attempting to commit an offense under this section, section 218, 356, 356c, or 360, or a local ordinance substantially corresponding to this section or section 218, 356, 356c, or 360 is guilty of retail fraud in the second degree.
(3) A person who commits retail fraud in the second degree shall not be prosecuted under section 360.
(4) A person who does any of the following in a store or in its immediate vicinity is guilty of retail fraud in the third degree, a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 93 days or a fine of not more than $500.00 or 3 times the value of the difference in price, property stolen, or money or property obtained or attempted to be obtained, whichever is greater, or both imprisonment and a fine:
(a) While a store is open to the public, alters, transfers, removes and replaces, conceals, or otherwise misrepresents the price at which property is offered for sale, with the intent not to pay for the property or to pay less than the price at which the property is offered for sale, if the resulting difference in price is less than $200.00.
(b) While a store is open to the public, steals property of the store that is offered for sale at a price of less than $200.00.
(c) With intent to defraud, obtains or attempts to obtain money or property from the store as a refund or exchange for property that was not paid for and belongs to the store, if the amount of money, or the value of the property, obtained or attempted to be obtained is less than $200.00.
(5) A person who commits retail fraud in the third degree shall not be prosecuted under section 360.
(6) The values of the difference in price, property stolen, or money or property obtained or attempted to be obtained in separate incidents pursuant to a scheme or course of conduct within any 12-month period may be aggregated to determine the total value involved in the offense under this section.
(7) If the prosecuting attorney intends to seek an enhanced sentence based upon the defendant having 1 or more prior convictions, 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 shall 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.
History: Add. 1988, Act 20, Eff. June 1, 1988 ;-- Am. 1998, Act 311, Eff. Jan. 1, 1999
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
39
cases (
10 in the last 5 years), 1989–2026 · leading case:
People v. Parcha, 575 N.W.2d 316 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
People v. Parcha, 575 N.W.2d 316 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 10× “§ 750.356d; M.S.A. § 28.588(4). [5] Because neither of these crimes is punishable by imprisonment in excess of one year, neither is admissible pursuant to MRE 609(a)(2).”
People v. Smith-Anthony, 837 N.W.2d 415 (Mich. 2013).
· cites it 4× “4 MCL 750.356d. 5 MCL 333.7403(2)(d). 6 Defendant argued that the retail-fraud charge was “more indicative of what happened on the date in question[.”
People v. Chambers, 742 N.W.2d 610 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “, *10 providing that “[a] person who commits retail fraud in the second degree [under MCL 750.356d] shall not be prosecuted under [MCL 750.”
People v. Nyx, 734 N.W.2d 548 (Mich. 2007).
· cites it 2× “356c; MCL 750.356d. [29] MCL 750.479a. [30] MCL 750.”
People v. Smith-Anthony, 821 N.W.2d 172 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 3× “530, second-degree retail fraud, second or subsequent offense, MCL 750.356d(4), and possession of marijuana, MCL 333.”
People v. Just., 550 N.W.2d 562 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 4× “§ 750.356d; M.S.A. § 28.588(4). However, under Michigan law, when a defendant has a prior conviction of certain enumerated theft offenses, [1] second-degree retail fraud is elevated to first-degree and the possible penalties increase.”
People v. Odendahl, 505 N.W.2d 16 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “588(3) and MCL 750.356d; MSA 28.588(4), respectively.”
People v. Eilola, 445 N.W.2d 490 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 2× “Second-degree retail fraud is set forth in MCL 750.356d; MSA 28.588(4): (1) A person who does any of the following in a store or in its immediate vicinity is guilty of retail fraud in the second degree, a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 93 days, or a…”
Bright v. Ailshie, 641 N.W.2d 587 (Mich. 2002).
“4 While the plain language of subsection (b) is dispositive, it is noteworthy that subsection (d) of MCL 764.16 authorizes a merchant (and certain affiliated parties) to make an arrest merely on the basis of “reasonable cause” to believe that a person has committed retail fraud…”
People v. Hamblin, 568 N.W.2d 339 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997).
“Accordingly, because the prosecutor presented competent evidence establishing the value of the damage that defendant caused and that value was more than $100, the district court magistrate did not abuse his discretion in binding defendant over on the felony charge of malicious…”
People v. Brown, 463 N.W.2d 491 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990).
“Although this normally would be a second-degree retail-fraud offense, MCL 750.356d; MSA 28.588(4X1), defendant was charged and convicted under subsection 2 of the first-degree retail-fraud statute, MCL 750.”
People v. Ramsey, 553 N.W.2d 360 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “[1] 1 MCL 750.356d; MSA 28.588(4). [2] 2 MCL 750.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.356d(1) — 4 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.356d(1)(a) — 3 cases
People v. Parcha, 575 N.W.2d 316 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
“§ 750.356d; M.S.A. § 28.588(4). [5] Because neither of these crimes is punishable by imprisonment in excess of one year, neither is admissible pursuant to MRE 609(a)(2).”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.356d(1)(b) — 5 cases
People v. Parcha, 575 N.W.2d 316 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
“§ 750.356d; M.S.A. § 28.588(4). [5] Because neither of these crimes is punishable by imprisonment in excess of one year, neither is admissible pursuant to MRE 609(a)(2).”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.356d(2) — 2 cases
People v. Odendahl, 505 N.W.2d 16 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).
“588(3) and MCL 750.356d; MSA 28.588(4), respectively.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.356d(3) — 2 cases
People v. Chambers, 742 N.W.2d 610 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
“, *10 providing that “[a] person who commits retail fraud in the second degree [under MCL 750.356d] shall not be prosecuted under [MCL 750.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.356d(3)(a) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.356d(4) — 12 cases
People v. Smith-Anthony, 821 N.W.2d 172 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
“530, second-degree retail fraud, second or subsequent offense, MCL 750.356d(4), and possession of marijuana, MCL 333.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.356d(4)(a) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.356d(4)(b) — 5 cases
People v. Smith-Anthony, 821 N.W.2d 172 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
“530, second-degree retail fraud, second or subsequent offense, MCL 750.356d(4), and possession of marijuana, MCL 333.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.356d(5) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.356d(l) — 2 cases
People v. Eilola, 445 N.W.2d 490 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989).
“Second-degree retail fraud is set forth in MCL 750.356d; MSA 28.588(4): (1) A person who does any of the following in a store or in its immediate vicinity is guilty of retail fraud in the second degree, a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 93 days, or a…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.356d(l)(a) — 1 case
People v. Parcha, 575 N.W.2d 316 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
“§ 750.356d; M.S.A. § 28.588(4). [5] Because neither of these crimes is punishable by imprisonment in excess of one year, neither is admissible pursuant to MRE 609(a)(2).”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.356d(l)(b) — 2 cases
People v. Smith-Anthony, 821 N.W.2d 172 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
“530, second-degree retail fraud, second or subsequent offense, MCL 750.356d(4), and possession of marijuana, MCL 333.”
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.