THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Act 175 of 1927
766.7 Adjournment, continuance, or delay of preliminary examination.
Sec. 7.
A magistrate may adjourn a preliminary examination for a felony to a place in the county as the magistrate determines is necessary. The defendant may in the meantime be committed either to the county jail or to the custody of the officer by whom he or she was arrested or to any other officer; or, unless the defendant is charged with treason or murder, the defendant may be admitted to bail. The defendant may waive the preliminary examination with the consent of the prosecuting attorney. An adjournment, continuance, or delay of a preliminary examination may be granted by a magistrate without the consent of the defendant or the prosecuting attorney for good cause shown. A magistrate may adjourn, continue, or delay the examination of any cause with the consent of the defendant and prosecuting attorney. An action on the part of the magistrate in adjourning or continuing any case does not cause the magistrate to lose jurisdiction of the case.
History: 1927, Act 175, Eff. Sept. 5, 1927 ;-- CL 1929, 17199 ;-- CL 1948, 766.7 ;-- Am. 1974, Act 63, Eff. May 1, 1974 ;-- Am. 2014, Act 123, Imd. Eff. May 20, 2014
Compiler's Notes:
Section 2 of Act 63 of 1974 provides:
“Effective date.
“Section 2. To give judges, prosecutors, and defense counsel a reasonable opportunity to become aware of and familiar with the time periods and sequence prescribed in this amendatory act and the effects of noncompliance, sections 20 and 21 of chapter 8 of Act No. 175 of the Public Acts of 1927, being sections 768.20 and 768.21 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, as amended by this amendatory act shall take effect May 1, 1974, and apply to cases in which the arraignment on an information occurs on or after that date. The other provisions of this amendatory act shall take effect May 1, 1974 and apply to offenses committed on or after that date.”
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."
FormerLaw Notes:
See section 10 of Ch. 163 of R.S. 1846, being CL 1857, § 5986; CL 1871, § 7852; How., § 9463; CL 1897, § 11847; and CL 1915, § 15674.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
28
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1964–2025 · leading case:
People v. Crawford, 414 N.W.2d 360 (Mich. 1987).
People v. Crawford, 414 N.W.2d 360 (Mich. 1987).
· cites it 12× “MCL 766.7; MSA 28.925. The function and importance of the preliminary examination have been discussed several times by this Court.”
People v. Frank Johnson, 381 N.W.2d 740 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 4× “An exception to the 12-day rule is found in MCL 766.7; MSA 28.925 which reads: "A magistrate may adjourn a preliminary examination for a felony to a place in the county as the magistrate deems necessary.”
People v. Hall, 460 N.W.2d 520 (Mich. 1990).
· cites it 2× “This Court noted the strict limitation on any delay as provided by MCL 766.7; MSA 28.925. We rejected the Court of Appeals application of a "no prejudice/no reversible error" rule, despite its "repeated application.”
People v. Lewis, 408 N.W.2d 94 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 3× “” MCL 766.7; MSA 28.925. In this case, defendant’s preliminary examination was started within twelve days of his arraignment but was adjourned several times by the examining magistrate.”
People v. Crawford, 372 N.W.2d 550 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “922 and that the only exception to the 12-day rule set forth in that statute is the following exception found in MCL 766.7; MSA 28.925: "A magistrate may adjourn a preliminary examination *359 for a felony to a place in the county as the magistrate deems necessary.”
People v. Robinson, 199 N.W.2d 878 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972).
· cites it 4× “The people assert that a magistrate may, within his judicial discretion, adjourn, continue or delay an examination where there is due cause shown.”
People v. Haines, 306 N.W.2d 455 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 4× “He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of from 8 to 14 years and appeals as a matter of right. Defendant claims that the examining magistrate failed to exercise properly his discretion in granting a continuance of the preliminary examination.”
People v. Weston, 319 N.W.2d 537 (Mich. 1982).
“” 5 The legislative significance attached to a prompt preliminary examination is underscored by the strict limitation on any delay contained in MCL 766.7; MSA 28.925: "An adjournment, continuance, or delay of a preliminary examination shall not be granted by a magistrate except…”
People v. Horne, 383 N.W.2d 208 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “Over defendants’ objections the examinations were postponed and were held on August 26 and September 8. On December 16, 1983, defendants’ motions to dismiss the cases as the preliminary examinations had not been held within 12 days of the arraignments were granted.”
People v. Buckner, 375 N.W.2d 794 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “If an adjournment is granted, the magistrate is required by MCL 766.7; MSA 28.925 to place upon the record reasons for the delay which establish "good cause”, even if the defendant and prosecutor stipulate to the adjournment.”
People v. Bersine, 210 N.W.2d 501 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973).
“On April 28, 1970, a petition for court-appointed counsel was filed and on May 1, 1970, the district court was notified that counsel had been appointed. A written appearance was filed by defendant’s counsel on May 11, 1970, and the examination was held on June 8, 1970.”
People v. McCoy, 471 N.W.2d 648 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991).
“The Code of Criminal Procedure requires that a defendant be given a preliminary examination within twelve days of his arraignment, unless good cause for an adjournment is shown.”
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.