THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Act 175 of 1927
762.3 Jurisdiction; offenses near county lines.
Sec. 3.
(1) Any offense committed on the boundary line of 2 counties, or within 1 mile of the dividing line between them, may be alleged in the indictment to have been committed, and may be prosecuted and punished in either county.
(2) If it appears to the attorney general that a felony has been committed within the state and that it is impossible to determine within which county it occurred, the offense may be alleged in the indictment to have been committed and may be prosecuted and punished in such county as the attorney general designates. The state shall bear all expenses of such prosecution. The responsibility and the authority with reference to all steps in the prosecution of such case shall be the same, as between the prosecuting attorney of the county so designated and the attorney general, as though it were an established fact that the alleged criminal acts, if committed at all, were committed within that county.
(3) With regard to state offenses cognizable by the examining magistrate and to examinations conducted for offenses not cognizable by the examining magistrate, the following special provisions apply:
(a) If an offense is committed on the boundary of 2 or more counties, districts or political subdivisions or within 1 mile thereof, venue is proper in any of the counties, districts or political subdivisions concerned.
(b) If an offense is committed in or upon any railroad train, automobile, aircraft, vessel or other conveyance in transit, and it cannot readily be determined in which county, district or political subdivision the offense was committed, venue is proper in any county, district or political subdivision through or over which the conveyance passed in the course of its journey.
(c) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (b), if it appears to the attorney general that the alleged state offense has been committed within the state and that it is impossible to determine within which county, district or political subdivision it occurred, the violation may be alleged to have been committed and may be prosecuted and punished or the examination conducted in such county, district or political subdivision as the attorney general designates. The responsibility and the authority with reference to all steps in the prosecution of such case shall be the same, as between the prosecuting attorney of the county so designated and the attorney general, as though it were an established fact that the alleged criminal acts, if committed at all, were committed within that county, district or political subdivision.
History: 1927, Act 175, Eff. Sept. 5, 1927 ;-- CL 1929, 17121 ;-- Am. 1935, Act 151, Imd. Eff. June 4, 1935 ;-- CL 1948, 762.3 ;-- Am. 1970, Act 213, Imd. Eff. Oct. 4, 1970
FormerLaw Notes:
See section 6 of Ch. 161 of R.S. 1846, being CL 1857, § 5942; CL 1871, § 7804; How., § 9418; CL 1897, § 11779; CL 1915, § 15606; and Act 399 of 1921.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
16
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1949–2026 · leading case:
People v. Nutt, 677 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2004).
People v. Nutt, 677 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2004).
· cites it 2× “120(A), should be amended to impose mandatory joinder of all the charges against a defendant arising out of the same transaction and to provide this Court with its recommendation within sixty days.”
State v. Anderson, 2005 WI 54 (Wis. 2005).
· cites it 2× “1999) (discussing broader legislation that provides that "where an attorney general concludes that an offense was committed somewhere within the state, but `it is impossible to determine in which county it occurred, the offense may be alleged in the indictment to have been…”
People v. Hamilton, 638 N.W.2d 92 (Mich. 2002).
“It rejected the prosecutor’s arguments that the arrest could be justified under MCL 762.3(3)(a), 3 which re *529 lates only to venue and not to the authority of officers to act outside their jurisdictions.”
People v. Anglin, 314 N.W.2d 581 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 2× “Was venue properly established pursuant to MCL 762.3; MSA 28.846? While defense counsel did make an objection to the introduction of the Attorney General’s order, at no time did defense counsel even argue that venue had not been properly established.”
City of Ctr. Line v. 37th Dist. Judges, 271 N.W.2d 526 (Mich. 1978).
· cites it 4× “In the subsequently enacted 1970 PA 213 , however, the Legislature provided a new subsection of MCLA 762.3; MSA 28.846 governing venue in state offenses cognizable by an examining magistrate.”
People v. Lundberg, 111 N.W.2d 809 (Mich. 1961).
“No other testimony regarding these distances appears in the record.”
People v. Coapman, 40 N.W.2d 167 (Mich. 1949).
“Apparently for the purpose of obviating any question as to venue that might subsequently be raised, the prosecuting attorney of Oakland county filed a petition with the attorney general of the State under CL 1929, § 17121, as amended by PA 1935, No 151 (CL 1948, § 762.3 [Stat…”
People v. Rotar, 357 N.W.2d 885 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984).
“The Attorney General’s order designating venue was requested by the prosecutor pursuant to MCL 762.3; MSA 28.846. We disagree with defendant’s contention that the order’s introduction removed the venue issue from the jury’s consideration.”
Wood v. Vasbinder, 310 F. App'x 861 (6th Cir. 2009).
“Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court denying Wood’s petition is affirmed. 1 . Michigan law allows charges to be brought in a given county where the arrest was made outside the county but within one mile of the county’s border.”
People v. Maliskey, 258 N.W.2d 512 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977).
“MCLA 762.3; MSA 28.846. However, the prosecution offered testimony by officer John T.”
People v. Rolston, 214 N.W.2d 894 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974).
· cites it 2× “548 has since been amended to include larceny, extortion, and kidnapping as supporting felonies. [2] Proper venue for the murder charge, if there was any doubt on that issue, could have been designated by the Attorney General.”
People v. Stanek, 233 N.W.2d 89 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975).
“Upon request of the Washtenaw County prosecuting attorney, the Attorney General entered an order designating venue to be in the County of Wayne pursuant to the provisions of MCLA 762.3; MSA 28.846. Said statute in pertinent part reads as follows: "If it appears to the attorney…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 762.3(1) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 762.3(2) — 2 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 762.3(3) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 762.3(3)(a) — 1 case
People v. Hamilton, 638 N.W.2d 92 (Mich. 2002).
“It rejected the prosecutor’s arguments that the arrest could be justified under MCL 762.3(3)(a), 3 which re *529 lates only to venue and not to the authority of officers to act outside their jurisdictions.”
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.