THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Act 175 of 1927
766.1 Right of state and defendant to prompt examination and determination; authority of district court magistrate.
Sec. 1.
The state and the defendant are entitled to a prompt examination and determination by the examining magistrate in all criminal causes and it is the duty of all courts and public officers having duties to perform in connection with an examination, to bring it to a final determination without delay except as necessary to secure to the defendant a fair and impartial examination. A district court magistrate appointed under chapter 85 of the revised judicature act of 1961, 1961 PA 236, MCL 600.8501 to 600.8551, shall not preside at a preliminary examination or accept a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to an offense or impose a sentence except as otherwise authorized by section 8511(a), (b), or (c) of the revised judicature act of 1961, 1961 PA 236, MCL 600.8511.
History: 1927, Act 175, Eff. Sept. 5, 1927 ;-- CL 1929, 17193 ;-- CL 1948, 766.1 ;-- Am. 2014, Act 123, Imd. Eff. May 20, 2014
Constitutionality Notes:
There is no federal constitutional right to a preliminary examination or hearing in a criminal prosecution. The procedure is left to the states. In Michigan, the right is statutory. People v Johnson, 427 Mich 98; 398 NW2d 219 (1986).
Compiler's Notes:
Enacting section 1 of Act 123 of 2014 provides:
"Enacting section 1. This amendatory act applies to cases in which the defendant is arraigned in district court or municipal court on or after January 1, 2015."
Notes of Decisions
People of Michigan v. Tremel Anderson, 912 N.W.2d 503 (Mich. 2018).
· cites it 2× “" MCL 766.1. Therefore, the proper role of a magistrate during a preliminary examination constitutes a question of statutory interpretation, the resolution of which begins with an examination of the language of the statute.”
People v. Hall, 460 N.W.2d 520 (Mich. 1990).
· cites it 4× “The notion that a presumptively innocent defendant should remain in custody until a convenient time arrives for the magistrate to conduct the preliminary examination is exactly what the Legislature precluded in MCL 766.”
People v. Johnson, 398 N.W.2d 219 (Mich. 1986).
· cites it 4× “*104 MCL 766.1; MSA 28.919 [2] provides that the state and the accused are entitled to a prompt preliminary examination.”
People v. McGee, 672 N.W.2d 191 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “An accused does not have a constitutional right to a preliminary examination, a procedure established by the Legislature, MCL 766.1 et seq., and recognized by court rule, MCR 6.”
People v. Glass, 627 N.W.2d 261 (Mich. 2001).
· cites it 2× “MCL 766.1;. The primary function of a preliminary examination is to determine if a crime has been committed and, if so, if there is probable cause to believe that the defendant committed it.”
People v. Manning, 624 N.W.2d 746 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “§ 766.1; MSA 28.919, which entitles the state and the accused to a "prompt" examination.”
People v. Smith, 378 N.W.2d 384 (Mich. 1985).
· cites it 2× “, at the preliminary examination, MCL 766.1 et seq.; MSA 28.919 et seq., at trial, MCL 768.”
People v. Crawford, 372 N.W.2d 550 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 4× “On this record, the finding that defendant was not entrapped was not clearly erroneous.”
People v. Crawford, 414 N.W.2d 360 (Mich. 1987).
· cites it 4× “The notion that a presumptively innocent defendant should remain in custody until a convenient time arrives for the magistrate to conduct the preliminary examination is exactly what the Legislature precluded in MCL 766.1; MSA 28.919.[ [13] ] Weston sought to implement and…”
People v. Hunt, 501 N.W.2d 151 (Mich. 1993).
· cites it 2× “[5] People v Hunt, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, decided March 31, 1992 (Docket No.”
People v. Weston, 319 N.W.2d 537 (Mich. 1982).
· cites it 2× “An action on the part of the magistrate in *375 adjourning or continuing any case, shall not cause the magistrate to lose jurisdiction of the case.” The examining magistrate is to bring the preliminary examination "to a final determination without delay except as it may be…”
People v. Duncan, 201 N.W.2d 629 (Mich. 1972).
· cites it 2× “[6] This is the same wording as the present MCLA 766.1; MSA 28.919. [7] Miller, Informations or Indictments in Felony Cases, 8 Minn L Rev 379 (1923-1924); Mayers, The American Legal System (Harper & Row, NY 1964) pp 67-71.”
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.