Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 767.19c (2026)

Grand jury; witness, failing to appear, contempt; penalty; purging.

✓ 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


767.19c Grand jury; witness, failing to appear, contempt; penalty; purging.

Sec. 19c.

    Any witness who neglects or refuses to appear or testify or both in response to a summons of the grand jury or to answer any questions before the grand jury concerning any matter or thing of which the witness has knowledge concerning matters before the grand jury after service of a true copy of an order granting the witness immunity as to such matters shall be guilty of a contempt and after a public hearing in open court and conviction of such contempt shall be fined not exceeding $10,000.00 or imprisoned not exceeding 1 year, or both. If the witness thereafter appears before the court to purge himself of such contempt, the court shall order the recalling of the grand jury to afford such opportunity, and after appearance of the witness before the grand jury upon a transcript of the testimony there and then given, the witness shall be brought before the court and after examination, the court shall determine whether the witness has purged himself of the contempt and shall commute the sentence upon a finding that the witness has purged himself.

History: Add. 1970, Act 9, Imd. Eff. Mar. 26, 1970

Constitutionality Notes:

    In People v David Johnson, 407 Mich 134; 283 NW2d 632 (1979), the Michigan supreme court held that an indigent witness has a right under the due process clause of the Michigan constitution to the assistance and appointment of counsel at contempt proceedings in respect to a citizens' grand jury which may result in incarceration.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1971–2007 · leading case: People v. Farquharson, 731 N.W.2d 797 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
People v. Farquharson, 731 N.W.2d 797 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “" MCL 767.19c. A "one person" grand jury may also be convened to investigate whether probable cause exists to suspect a crime has been committed.”
Spalter v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 192 N.W.2d 347 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971). · cites it 6× “[3] MCLA § 767.19c (Stat Ann 1971 Cum Supp § 28.”
People v. Walker, 224 N.W.2d 879 (Mich. 1975). · cites it 10× “The single dispositive question we resolve today is whether defendants can properly be imprisoned for two terms totaling a sentence of more than one year for failure to answer the same or similar questions before the same grand jury, once sitting in "regular” session and once in…”
People v. David Johnson, 283 N.W.2d 632 (Mich. 1979). · cites it 10× “5 *146 The judge then found Johnson guilty of contempt pursuant to MCL 767.19c; MSA 28.959(3), 6 and pronounced the sentence.”
In Re Contempt of Dougherty, 413 N.W.2d 392 (Mich. 1987). “164(37) (time limitation for *132 confinement due to contempt for nonpayment of child support) and MCL 767.19c; MSA 28.959(3) (time limitation for confinement due to contempt for refusal or neglect to appear or testify before the grand jury), and prescribe a reasonable amount of…”
People v. Walker, 259 N.W.2d 887 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 8× “See MCLA 767.19c; MSA 28.959(3). Subsequently, a new grand jury was empaneled to investigate automobile insurance fraud.”
People v. Johnson, 258 N.W.2d 504 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 7× “The lower court then sentenced appellant to the Wayne County Jail for one year or until the grand jury term expired, whichever was shorter. Additionally, appellant was fined $10,000.”
Williams Int'l Corp. v. Smith, 429 Mich. 81 (Mich. 1987). “164(37) (time limitation for *132 confinement due to contempt for nonpayment of child support) and MCL 767.19c; MSA 28.959(3) (time limitation for confinement due to contempt for refusal or neglect to appear or testify before the grand jury), and prescribe a reasonable amount of…”
In Re Spalter, 188 N.W.2d 67 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971). “August 10, 1970, the prosecuting attorney filed a petition for an order to show cause why defendant should not be found in contempt as provided in MCLA 1971 Cum Supp § 767.19c, as added by PA 1970, No 9 (Stat Ann 1971 Cum Supp § 28.”
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.