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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.441 (2026)

Teaching, soliciting and advocating polygamy; felony.

✓ 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


750.441 Teaching, soliciting and advocating polygamy; felony.

Sec. 441.

    Teaching, soliciting and advocating the practice of polygamy—Any person who shall solicit to a polygamous life, or teach polygamy as a correct form of family life, for the purpose of inducing men and women to enter into the practice of polygamy or advocate the doctrine and practice of polygamy, or attempt to persuade any person by private or public discourse to adopt a polygamous life, shall be guilty of a felony.

History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;-- CL 1948, 750.441

FormerLaw Notes:

    See section 1 of Act 249 of 1899, being CL 1915, § 15501; and CL 1929, § 16845.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1976–1987 · leading case: People v. Garth, 287 N.W.2d 216 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Garth, 287 N.W.2d 216 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 2× “Felony convictions cover a wide range of activities from advocating polygamy, MCL 750.441; MSA 28.696, through perjury in a court of law, MCL 750.”
People v. McMillan, 242 N.W.2d 518 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 2× “703; soliciting an athlete is a felony, MCLA 750.”
People v. McBride, 319 N.W.2d 535 (Mich. 1982). “” *345 We note the observations made by Chief Judge Danhof in People v Garth, supra, 93 Mich App 317 -318: "Felony convictions cover a wide range of activities from advocating polygamy, MCL 750.441; MSA 28.696, through perjury in a court of law, MCL 750.”
People v. Belanger, 405 N.W.2d 405 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). “Without knowledge of the nature of the felony, the trier of fact has no probative evidence to consider, merely an amorphous suggestion that defendant’s past is blameworthy.”
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.