THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Act 175 of 1927
765.1 Judges and district court magistrate empowered to let accused person to bail; recognizance for appearance of accused person.
Sec. 1.
(1) A judge of the circuit court, of the recorder's court of the city of Detroit, of the traffic and ordinance division of the recorder's court of the city of Detroit, of the district court, and of a municipal court, and a district court magistrate, shall have power to let an accused person brought before the judge or district court magistrate to bail pursuant to section 15 of article 1 of the state constitution of 1963 .
(2) A recognizance for the appearance of an accused person may be taken and entered into by and before the clerks of the courts listed in subsection (1), subject to the direction of the court if the amount of bail has been set by the judge.
History: 1927, Act 175, Eff. Sept. 5, 1927 ;-- CL 1929, 17163 ;-- CL 1948, 765.1 ;-- Am. 1951, Act 3, Imd. Eff. Mar. 6, 1951 ;-- Am. 1980, Act 506, Imd. Eff. Jan. 22, 1981
FormerLaw Notes:
See section 26 of Ch. 163 of R.S. 1846, being CL 1857, § 6002; CL 1871, § 7868; How., § 9479; CL 1897, § 11863; CL 1915, § 15690; and Act 4 of 1858.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
33
cases (
24 in the last 5 years), 1971–2026 · leading case:
Rouch v. Enquirer & News, 487 N.W.2d 205 (Mich. 1992).
People v. Mallory, 365 N.W.2d 673 (Mich. 1985).
· cites it 2× “[8] I can see little distinction between this situation and that of an individual arrested on probable cause in an outstate county on a Friday, who while awaiting arraignment on Monday (or later) by a magistrate, is observed on Sunday evening to have blood on his shoes.”
Pressley v. Wayne Cnty. Sheriff, 186 N.W.2d 412 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).
· cites it 4× “The origin of the bail practice is probably administrative; sheriffs on their own initiative released prisoners, but were personally answerable if the prisoner did not appear.”
People v. Evans, 454 N.W.2d 105 (Mich. 1990).
· cites it 2× “, is one of a number of sections within that chapter which concern the right of a party to deposit cash, a check, or certain negotiable securities with a trial court in order to secure a defendant's release *320 when bail is either required or permitted.”
In Re Bail Bond Forfeiture, 740 N.W.2d 734 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
“It is also governed by chapter 5 of Michigan's code of criminal procedure, MCL 765.1 et seq. At the time that Moore, Lineman, and Velez initially failed to appear, MCL 765.”
People v. Sligh, 431 N.W.2d 395 (Mich. 1988).
“The other sections of that chapter refer to pretrial bail procedures, MCL 765.1 et seq.; MSA 28.888 et seq., former 1929 CL 17163 et seq.”
In Re Ford, 468 N.W.2d 260 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991).
“Defendant argues that this result is incorrect because under Const 1963, art 1, §§ 15 and 16 and the statutes implementing those provisions, MCL 765.1 et seq.; MSA 28.888 et seq., all persons are entitled to bail except in the enumerated circumstances.”
People v. Moore, 276 Mich. App. 482 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
“It is also governed by chapter 5 of Michigan’s code of criminal procedure, MCL 765.1 et seq. At the time that Moore, Lineman, and Velez initially failed to appear, MCL 765.”
Wayne Cnty. Prosecutor v. 36th Dist. Judge, 187 Mich. App. 452 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991).
“Defendant argues that this result is incorrect because under Const 1963, art 1, §§ 15 and 16 and the statutes implementing those provisions, MCL 765.1 et seq.; MSA 28.888 et seq., all persons are entitled to bail except in the enumerated circumstances.”
Koerber, II v. Bouchard (E.D. Mich. 2022).
· cites it 2× “A challenge to pretrial detention in Michigan is governed by Mich. Comp. Laws § 765.1 et seq. Under those provisions and the Michigan Court Rules, it appears that state-court remedies are still available to Petitioner.”
Snell v. Unknown Part(y)(ies) (W.D. Mich. 2022).
· cites it 2× “106(H) provides for modification of pretrial custody orders—indeed, the rule contemplates circumstances that warrant emergency release.”
Snell v. Unknown Part(y)(ies) (W.D. Mich. 2022).
· cites it 2× “106(H) provides for modification of pretrial custody orders—indeed, the rule contemplates circumstances that warrant emergency release.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 765.1(1) — 1 case
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.