THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Act 175 of 1927
763.8 Audiovisual recording of interrogation.
Sec. 8.
(1) This section applies if the law enforcement agency has audiovisual recording equipment that is operational or accessible as provided in section 11(3) or (4) or upon the expiration of the relevant time periods set forth in section 11(3) or (4), whichever occurs first.
(2) A law enforcement official interrogating an individual in custodial detention regarding the individual's involvement in the commission of a major felony shall make a time-stamped, audiovisual recording of the entire interrogation. A major felony recording shall include the law enforcement official's notification to the individual of the individual's Miranda rights.
(3) An individual who believes the individual's interrogation is being recorded may object to having the interrogation recorded. The individual's objection shall be documented either by the individual's objection stated on the recording or the individual's signature on a document stating the objection. If the individual refuses to document the objection either by recording or signature, a law enforcement official shall document the objection by a recording or signed document. A major felony recording may be made without the consent or knowledge of, or despite the objection of, the individual being interrogated.
(4) A major felony recording shall be produced using equipment and procedures that are designed to prevent alteration of the recording's audio or visual record.
(5) Pursuant to any request of discovery, the prosecutor shall provide a copy of the recorded statement to the defense counsel of record or to the defendant if he or she is not represented by defense counsel. The court shall not require the police or the prosecutor to prepare or pay for a transcript of a recorded statement. A court or the defense may have a transcript prepared at its own expense.
(6) Prior to conviction or acquittal, a statement recorded under this section is exempt from disclosure under the freedom of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 to 15.246.
History: Add. 2012, Act 479, Eff. Mar. 28, 2013
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
49
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 2014–2024 · leading case:
Commonwealth v. Pugh, 101 A.3d 820 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014).
Commonwealth v. Pugh, 101 A.3d 820 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014).
“§ 2-402; Mich. Comp. Laws § 763.8 ; Minnesota v. Scales, 518 N.”
People of Michigan v. Justin Milton Bell (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 9× “9 Defendant first argues that trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to ask the trial court to instruct the jury that interrogations for major felonies must be recorded, MCL 763.8, and that jurors could consider the absence of such recording when evaluating…”
People of Michigan v. Justin Milton Bell (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 9× “JURY INSTRUCTION Defendant next argues that trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to ask the trial court to instruct the jury that interrogations for major felonies must be recorded, MCL 763.8, and that jurors could consider the absence of such recording…”
People of Michigan v. Justin Milton Bell (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 9× “9 Defendant first argues that trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to ask the trial court to instruct the jury that interrogations for major felonies must be recorded, MCL 763.8, and that jurors could consider the absence of such recording when evaluating…”
People of Michigan v. Justin Milton Bell (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 9× “JURY INSTRUCTION Defendant next argues that trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to ask the trial court to instruct the jury that interrogations for major felonies must be recorded, MCL 763.8, and that jurors could consider the absence of such recording…”
People of Michigan v. Jay Scott Clark (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 9× “MCL 763.8 Defendant also claims that the trial court erroneously admitted the recording of his statements in violation of MCL 763.”
People of Michigan v. Kennie Carnail Whitby (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 8× “Thus, compliance with MCL 763.8 was mandatory. Although a video recording of part of the interrogation existed, the recording omits the initial portion of Hayes’s interview with defendant, including Hayes’s notification to defendant of his Miranda rights.”
People of Michigan v. Kennie Carnail Whitby (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 8× “Thus, compliance with MCL 763.8 was mandatory. Although a video recording of part of the interrogation existed, the recording omits the initial portion of Hayes’s interview with defendant, including Hayes’s notification to defendant of his Miranda rights.”
People of Michigan v. Keith Irving Luesing (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 6× “7 is the definitional provision that applies to MCL 763.8[.]” Hence, as used in MCL 763.8, “interrogation” means “questioning in a criminal investigation that may elicit a self- incriminating response from an individual and includes a law enforcement official’s words or actions…”
People of Michigan v. Keith Irving Luesing (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 6× “7 is the definitional provision that applies to MCL 763.8[.]” Hence, as used in MCL 763.8, “interrogation” means “questioning in a criminal investigation that may elicit a self- incriminating response from an individual and includes a law enforcement official’s words or actions…”
People of Michigan v. Onyema Ellis-Jones Simmons (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 5× “9, which provides, Any failure to record a statement as required under [MCL 763.8] or to preserve a recorded statement does not prevent any law enforcement official present during the taking of the statement from testifying in court as to the circumstances and content of the…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 763.8(1) — 9 cases
People of Michigan v. Justin Milton Bell (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“9 Defendant first argues that trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to ask the trial court to instruct the jury that interrogations for major felonies must be recorded, MCL 763.8, and that jurors could consider the absence of such recording when evaluating…”
People of Michigan v. Justin Milton Bell (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“JURY INSTRUCTION Defendant next argues that trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to ask the trial court to instruct the jury that interrogations for major felonies must be recorded, MCL 763.8, and that jurors could consider the absence of such recording…”
People of Michigan v. Justin Milton Bell (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“9 Defendant first argues that trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to ask the trial court to instruct the jury that interrogations for major felonies must be recorded, MCL 763.8, and that jurors could consider the absence of such recording when evaluating…”
People of Michigan v. Justin Milton Bell (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“JURY INSTRUCTION Defendant next argues that trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to ask the trial court to instruct the jury that interrogations for major felonies must be recorded, MCL 763.8, and that jurors could consider the absence of such recording…”
People of Michigan v. Kennie Carnail Whitby (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“Thus, compliance with MCL 763.8 was mandatory. Although a video recording of part of the interrogation existed, the recording omits the initial portion of Hayes’s interview with defendant, including Hayes’s notification to defendant of his Miranda rights.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 763.8(2) — 25 cases
People of Michigan v. Onyema Ellis-Jones Simmons (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“9, which provides, Any failure to record a statement as required under [MCL 763.8] or to preserve a recorded statement does not prevent any law enforcement official present during the taking of the statement from testifying in court as to the circumstances and content of the…”
People of Michigan v. Kennie Carnail Whitby (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“Thus, compliance with MCL 763.8 was mandatory. Although a video recording of part of the interrogation existed, the recording omits the initial portion of Hayes’s interview with defendant, including Hayes’s notification to defendant of his Miranda rights.”
People of Michigan v. Kennie Carnail Whitby (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“Thus, compliance with MCL 763.8 was mandatory. Although a video recording of part of the interrogation existed, the recording omits the initial portion of Hayes’s interview with defendant, including Hayes’s notification to defendant of his Miranda rights.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 763.8(3) — 3 cases
People of Michigan v. Kennie Carnail Whitby (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“Thus, compliance with MCL 763.8 was mandatory. Although a video recording of part of the interrogation existed, the recording omits the initial portion of Hayes’s interview with defendant, including Hayes’s notification to defendant of his Miranda rights.”
People of Michigan v. Kennie Carnail Whitby (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“Thus, compliance with MCL 763.8 was mandatory. Although a video recording of part of the interrogation existed, the recording omits the initial portion of Hayes’s interview with defendant, including Hayes’s notification to defendant of his Miranda rights.”
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.