THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Act 175 of 1927
767.29 Discontinuance or abandonment of indictment.
Sec. 29.
A prosecuting attorney shall not enter a nolle prosequi upon an indictment, or discontinue or abandon the indictment, without stating on the record the reasons for the discontinuance or abandonment and without the leave of the court having jurisdiction to try the offense charged, entered in its minutes. If a defendant is charged with a major controlled substance offense, in addition to the requirements of this section, the requirements of section 7415 of the public health code, Act No. 368 of the Public Acts of 1978, being section 333.7415 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, shall apply upon the prosecuting attorney's motion to dismiss the charge.
History: 1927, Act 175, Eff. Sept. 5, 1927 ;-- Am. 1929, Act 24, Imd. Eff. Apr. 2, 1929 ;-- CL 1929, 17243 ;-- CL 1948, 767.29 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 77, Eff. Sept. 1, 1978 ;-- Am. 1988, Act 90, Imd. Eff. Mar. 30, 1988
FormerLaw Notes:
See section 23 of Ch. 164 of R.S. 1846, being CL 1857, § 6032; CL 1871, § 7901; How., § 9512; CL 1897, § 11897; and CL 1915, § 15724.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
36
cases (
9 in the last 5 years), 1968–2026 · leading case:
People v. Glass, 627 N.W.2d 261 (Mich. 2001).
People v. Glass, 627 N.W.2d 261 (Mich. 2001).
· cites it 14× “MCL 767.29. The court to which the indictment is presented may issue a warrant for the arrest of the person indicted.”
People v. Richmond, 782 N.W.2d 187 (Mich. 2010).
· cites it 4× “NOTES [1] There is a dispute about whether the prosecution's voluntary dismissal of the charges was a nolle prosequi under MCL 767.29. We need not, however, address that dispute because it does not affect our analysis of the issue that is currently before this Court.”
MacK v. City of Detroit, 649 N.W.2d 47 (Mich. 2002).
· cites it 2× “§ 767.29, and whether the Court properly exercised its authority over criminal procedure).”
People v. Reagan, 235 N.W.2d 581 (Mich. 1975).
· cites it 6× “[4] The trial court rejected defendant's contention, acknowledging the agreement, but failing to see that defendant had been in any way "prejudiced" by withdrawal of the agreement. [5] Defendant was ultimately tried by jury and convicted as charged.”
People v. McCartney, 250 N.W.2d 135 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976).
· cites it 8× “See also MCLA 767.29; MSA 28.969. [2] The nature of the trial court's role in approving or disapproving nolle prosequi has been set forth in Genesee Prosecutor v Genesee Circuit Judge, 391 Mich 115, 121 ; 215 NW2d 145, 147 (1974): *586 "[I]n proposing to nolle prosequi,…”
People v. Sierb, 581 N.W.2d 219 (Mich. 1998).
· cites it 2× “§ 767.29; M.S.A. § 28.969, or retry a defendant after having one full and fair opportunity at obtaining a conviction.”
People v. Curtis, 209 N.W.2d 243 (Mich. 1973).
· cites it 4× “The appellee, and the honorable circuit court judge, by means of his order of superintending control, take the position that the matter is determined by MCLA 767.29; MSA 28.969, which states: "It shall not hereafter be lawful for any prosecuting attorney to enter a nolle…”
People v. Mateo, 551 N.W.2d 891 (Mich. 1996).
“§ 767.29; M.S.A. § 28.1096 is not a legislative usurpation of this Court's authority and miscarriage of justice must affirmatively appear on review of nonconstitutional preserved error.”
People v. Heiler, 262 N.W.2d 890 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 2× “See MCLA 767.29; MSA 28.969, cited above. Lack of judicial approval when such is statutorily required has been said to nullify the effect of purportedly dispositional agreement between the prosecution and a defendant.”
People v. Byrd, 162 N.W.2d 777 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968).
· cites it 2× “The exercise of that discretion, at least prior to charge (See CL 1948, § 767.29 [Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.969] requiring leave of court for a nolle prosequi ), is generally regarded as unreviewable.”
People v. Morrow, 542 N.W.2d 324 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).
“MCL 767.29; MSA 28.969; see also MCL 767.”
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.