Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.86 (2026)

Assault with intent to maim.

✓ 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


750.86 Assault with intent to maim.

Sec. 86.

    Assault with intent to maim—Any person who shall assault another with intent to maim or disfigure his person by cutting out or maiming the tongue, putting out or destroying an eye, cutting or tearing off an ear, cutting or slitting or mutilating the nose or lips or cutting off or disabling a limb, organ or member, shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not more than 10 years or by fine of not more than 5,000 dollars.

History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;-- CL 1948, 750.86

FormerLaw Notes:

    See sections 11 and 12 of Ch. 153 of R.S. 1846, being CL 1857, §§ 5721 and 5722; CL 1871, §§ 7520 and 7521; How., §§ 9085 and 9086; CL 1897, §§ 11480 and 11481; CL 1915, §§ 15202 and 15203; and CL 1929, §§ 16718 and 16719.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1972–2026 · leading case: People v. Lorentzen, 194 N.W.2d 827 (Mich. 1972).
People v. Lorentzen, 194 N.W.2d 827 (Mich. 1972). · cites it 3× “[11] MCLA 750.86; MSA 28.279. [12] MCLA 750.86; MSA 28.”
People v. Joeseype Johnson, 284 N.W.2d 718 (Mich. 1979). · cites it 2× “assault with intent to maim, 1931 PA 328 ; MCL 750.86; MSA 28.281 7. assault with intent to commit felony not otherwise punished, 1931 PA 328 ; MCL 750.”
People v. Conat, 605 N.W.2d 49 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “278; (3) assault with intent to maim, MCL 750.86; MSA 28.281; (4) assault with intent to rob and steal while armed, MCL 750.”
People v. Ward, 536 N.W.2d 270 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 3× “Defendant was charged with assault with intent to maim, MCL 750.86; MSA 28.281. At the preliminary examination, defendant’s wife testified that, during the course of an argument, defendant grabbed her by the face, put his thumbs into her eyes, and said: "Now, I’m going to pop…”
People v. Harman, 333 N.W.2d 591 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “771; assault with intent to maim, ten years, MCL 750.86; MSA 28.281; and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, two years, MCL 750.”
People v. Randolph, 648 N.W.2d 164 (Mich. 2002). · cites it 2× “§ 750.86, or M.C.L. § 750.87, or life or, if the defendant intended to murder his victim, a term up to life in prison, M.”
People v. Anderson, 765 N.W.2d 341 (Mich. 2009). “I would grant leave to appeal to consider the Court of Appeals interpretation of MCL 750.86. Enacted as 2005 PA 335 , effective March 1, 2006, MCL 750.”
People of Michigan v. Tion Turner (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “529, and assault with intent to maim, MCL 750.86. Frank was sentenced to 18 to 30 years’ imprisonment for torture, 4 to 15 years’ imprisonment for unlawful imprisonment, 1 to 4 years’ imprisonment for felonious assault, and 2 years’ imprisonment for felony-firearm.”
Owens v. Woods (E.D. Mich. 2020). · cites it 2× “85 , assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.84 , assault with intent to maim, Mich.”
People of Michigan v. Tion Turner (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “529, and assault with intent to maim, MCL 750.86. Frank was sentenced to 18 to 30 years’ imprisonment for torture, 4 to 15 years’ imprisonment for unlawful imprisonment, 1 to 4 years’ imprisonment for felonious assault, and 2 years’ imprisonment for felony-firearm.”
People of Michigan v. Jason James Strong (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “He was sentenced to concurrent sentences of 30 months to 10 years for the assault with intent to commit great bodily harm conviction, 30 months to 10 years for the assault with intent to maim conviction, and 2 to 4 years for the felonious assault conviction.”
People of Michigan v. Jonathon Ledale Purnell (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “81 to MCL 750.86. -5- memory of the details of the events by witnesses, including himself.”
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.