Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 763 / Act 175 of 1927
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 763.4 (2026)

Waiver of trial by jury; jurisdiction of judge, procedure.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE


Act 175 of 1927


763.4 Waiver of trial by jury; jurisdiction of judge, procedure.

Sec. 4.

    In any case where a defendant waives his right to a trial by jury and elects to be tried by the judge of such court as provided in section 3 of this chapter any judge of the court in which said cause is pending shall have jurisdiction to proceed with the trial of said cause, and shall proceed to hear, try and determine such cause in accordance with the rules and in like manner as if such cause were being tried before a jury.

History: 1927, Act 175, Eff. Sept. 5, 1927 ;-- CL 1929, 17132 ;-- CL 1948, 763.4

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1970–2022 · leading case: In the Matter of Del Rio, 256 N.W.2d 727 (Mich. 1978).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In the Matter of Del Rio, 256 N.W.2d 727 (Mich. 1978). · cites it 2× “" MCLA 763.4; MSA 28.857. The court is duty-bound just as any juror not to form or express an opinion on the merits of the case until the case is submitted for determination.”
People v. Cazal, 316 N.W.2d 705 (Mich. 1982). · cites it 2× “MCL 763.4; MSA 28.857, which predates Chamblis , provides: "In any case where a defendant waives his right to a trial by jury and elects to be tried by the judge of such court as provided in section 3 of this chapter any judge of the court in which said cause is pending shall…”
People v. Mosly, 672 N.W.2d 897 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “As the prosecution points out on appeal, MCL 763.4 provides that where a defendant waives his right to a trial by jury, “any judge of the *99 court in which said cause is pending shall have jurisdiction to proceed with the trial of said cause .”
In Re Guilty Plea Cases, 235 N.W.2d 132 (Mich. 1975). “(MCLA 763.4; MSA 28.857.) Three of them have been given preeminent importance.”
People v. Walker, 180 N.W.2d 193 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970). “CL 1948, § 763.4 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.857). In effect, the statute places the same standard of impartiality on the judge as the constitution places on the jury.”
People v. Yacks, 196 N.W.2d 827 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972). “’ CL 1948, § 763.4 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.857). In effect, the statute places the same standard of impartiality on the judge as the constitution places on the jury.”
People v. Nicholson, 235 N.W.2d 132 (Mich. 1975). “(MCLA 763.4; MSA 28.857.) Three of them have been given preeminent importance.”
People v. Kosecki, 251 N.W.2d 283 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). “"Subdivision (d) "(i) states that the trial may be by jury or by the court, "(ii) speaks of the people’s burden of proof at a trial, "(iii) refers to the rights to confront and question and to have compulsory production of witnesses, and "(iv) speaks of the Fifth Amendment…”
People of Michigan v. Husam Kamil Alzehery (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “” People v Walker, 24 Mich App 360, 361 ; 180 NW2d 193 (1970), aff’d 385 Mich 596 (1971), quoting MCL 763.4. -8- Our review of the trial court’s line of questioning confirms that the trial court did not engage in judicial misconduct.”
People of Michigan v. Husam Kamil Alzehery (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “” People v Walker, 24 Mich App 360, 361 ; 180 NW2d 193 (1970), aff’d 385 Mich 596 (1971), quoting MCL 763.4. -8- Our review of the trial court’s line of questioning confirms that the trial court did not engage in judicial misconduct.”
People of Michigan v. John Howard Morgan (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). “According to MCL 763.4, [i]n any case where a defendant waives his right to a trial by jury and elects to be tried by the judge of such court .”
Morgan 269876 v. Taskila (W.D. Mich. 2022). “According to MCL 763.4, [i]n any case where a defendant waives his right to a trial by jury and elects to be tried by the judge of such court .”
Show all 13 citing 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.