THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Act 175 of 1927
763.3 Waiver of trial by jury in criminal cases.
Sec. 3.
(1) In all criminal cases arising in the courts of this state the defendant may, with the consent of the prosecutor and approval by the court, waive a determination of the facts by a jury and elect to be tried before the court without a jury. Except in cases of minor offenses, the waiver and election by a defendant shall be in writing signed by the defendant and filed in the case and made a part of the record. The waiver and election shall be entitled in the court and case, and in substance as follows: "I, .............., defendant in the above case, hereby voluntarily waive and relinquish my right to a trial by jury and elect to be tried by a judge of the court in which the case may be pending. I fully understand that under the laws of this state I have a constitutional right to a trial by jury."
______________________
Signature of defendant.
(2) Except in cases of minor offenses, the waiver of trial by jury shall be made in open court after the defendant has been arraigned and has had opportunity to consult with legal counsel.
History: 1927, Act 175, Eff. Sept. 5, 1927 ;-- CL 1929, 17131 ;-- CL 1948, 763.3 ;-- Am. 1980, Act 506, Imd. Eff. Jan. 22, 1981 ;-- Am. 1988, Act 89, Eff. June 1, 1988
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
95
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 1956–2026 · leading case:
People v. Jones, 860 N.W.2d 112 (Mich. 2014).
People v. Jones, 860 N.W.2d 112 (Mich. 2014).
· cites it 8× “4 We granted the prosecution’s interlocutory application for leave to appeal, directing the parties to brief the following issues: (1) whether a legislative provision barring consideration of a necessarily included lesser offense violates the separation of powers doctrine, Const…”
People v. Bullock, 485 N.W.2d 866 (Mich. 1992).
· cites it 4× “Appeals that that Court did not explicitly address: (1) that the admission into evidence of the traces of cocaine found in the glove compartment and Bullock's purse was erroneous because it constituted "other acts" evidence not admissible under MRE 404(b); (2) that the denial of…”
People v. Kirby, 487 N.W.2d 404 (Mich. 1992).
· cites it 6× “In these cases we are asked to decide whether MCL 763.3; MSA 28.856 and MCR 6.401, 1 *487 requiring the consent of the prosecution and approval by the court before a defendant may waive a criminal jury trial, are constitutional.”
People v. Allen, 420 N.W.2d 499 (Mich. 1988).
· cites it 2× “In Michigan, the defendant has the sole right to select a bench trial or a trial by jury, MCL 763.3; MSA 28.856; People v Stoeckl, 347 Mich 1 ; 78 NW2d 640 (1956).”
People v. Bates, 438 N.W.2d 298 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 6× “The lower court concluded that the amended version of MCL 763.3; MSA 28.856, which requires the prosecutor’s consent in order to waive a jury trial, does not apply to charges based upon criminal activity which occurred prior to June 1,1988, the effective date of the statute.”
People v. James, 458 N.W.2d 911 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 4× “Defendant appealed and this Court reversed defendant's convictions because there was no record showing that defendant waived his right to a jury trial in open court, MCL 763.3; MSA 28.856. People v James, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, decided June 14,…”
People v. Degraffenreid, 173 N.W.2d 317 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969).
· cites it 2× “13 MCLA § 763.3 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.856); Patton v.”
In Re Whittaker, 607 N.W.2d 387 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 6× “Respondent contends that he was denied his constitutional right to trial by jury because he did not make a knowing and intelligent waiver either in writing or in open court, as required by M.”
People v. Word, 242 N.W.2d 471 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976).
· cites it 3× “The threshold issue raised by defendant is that the waiver of jury trial failed to comply with MCLA 763.3; MSA 28.856, and therefore was invalid and requires a new trial.”
People v. Hack, 556 N.W.2d 187 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “§ 763.3(1); M.S.A. § 28.856(1); MCR 6.401.”
People v. Serr, 250 N.W.2d 535 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976).
· cites it 2× “MCLA 763.3; MSA 28.856. Because of a public policy favoring the orderly process of the administration of justice there are restrictions placed on the withdrawal of such waiver of jury before trial.”
People v. Rodgers, 446 N.W.2d 845 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 5× “] In the within case, first we note that a question of whether to afford retroactive application of the amended statute is not in fact involved, since defendant’s waiver request was made after the effective date of the amendment.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 763.3(1) — 15 cases
People v. Jones, 860 N.W.2d 112 (Mich. 2014).
“4 We granted the prosecution’s interlocutory application for leave to appeal, directing the parties to brief the following issues: (1) whether a legislative provision barring consideration of a necessarily included lesser offense violates the separation of powers doctrine, Const…”
People v. Hack, 556 N.W.2d 187 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996).
“§ 763.3(1); M.S.A. § 28.856(1); MCR 6.401.”
People v. Rodgers, 446 N.W.2d 845 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989).
“] In the within case, first we note that a question of whether to afford retroactive application of the amended statute is not in fact involved, since defendant’s waiver request was made after the effective date of the amendment.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 763.3(2) — 3 cases
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.