Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 767.3 (2026)

Proceedings before trial; inquiry; summoning witnesses; notification to judge; taking testimony; legal counsel; disqualification of judge.

✓ 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

767.3 Proceedings before trial; inquiry; summoning witnesses; notification to judge; taking testimony; legal counsel; disqualification of judge.

Sec. 3.

Whenever by reason of the filing of any complaint, which may be upon information and belief, or upon the application of the prosecuting attorney or attorney general, any judge of a court of law and of record shall have probable cause to suspect that any crime, offense or misdemeanor has been committed within his jurisdiction, and that any persons may be able to give any material evidence respecting such suspected crime, offense or misdemeanor, such judge in his discretion may make an order directing that an inquiry be made into the matters relating to such complaint, which order, or any amendment thereof, shall be specific to common intent of the scope of the inquiry to be conducted, and thereupon conduct such inquiry. In any court having more than 1 judge such order and the designation of the judge to conduct the inquiry shall be made in accordance with the rules of such court. Thereupon such judge shall require such persons to attend before him as witnesses and answer such questions as the judge may require concerning any violation of law about which they may be questioned within the scope of the order. The proceedings to summon such witness and to compel him to testify shall, as far as possible, be the same as proceedings to summon witnesses and compel their attendance and testimony. The witnesses shall not receive any compensation or remuneration other than witness fees as paid witnesses in other criminal proceedings. The witness shall not be employed in any capacity by the judge or by any person connected with such inquiry, within the scope of the inquiry being conducted. Whenever a subpoena is issued by the judge conducting the inquiry, commanding the appearance of a witness before the judge forthwith upon the service of such subpoena, and, following the service thereof, the witness arrives at the time and place stated in the subpoena, the judge issuing the same shall be forthwith notified of the appearance by the officer serving the subpoena, and the judge forthwith shall appear and take the testimony of the witness. Any person called before the grand jury shall at all times be entitled to legal counsel not involving delay and he may discuss fully with his counsel all matters relative to his part in the inquiry without being subject to a citation for contempt. The witness shall have the right to have counsel present in the room where the inquiry is held. All matters revealed to the attorney shall be subject to the requirements of secrecy in section 4, and any revelation thereof by the attorney shall make him subject to punishment as provided in section 4. No testimony shall be taken or given by any witness except in the presence of the judge.

Any judge, prosecuting attorney or special prosecuting attorney, or the attorney general participating in any inquiry under this section which continues more than 30 calendar days shall thereafter be disqualified from appointment or election to any office other than one held at the time of the inquiry. The disqualification shall not extend more than 1 year from date of termination of the inquiry, as determined by final order of the judge entered prior to such date.

History: 1927, Act 175, Eff. Sept. 5, 1927 ;-- CL 1929, 17217 ;-- CL 1948, 767.3 ;-- Am. 1949, Act 311, Eff. Sept. 23, 1949 ;-- Am. 1951, Act 276, Eff. Sept. 28, 1951 ;-- Am. 1965, Act 251, Imd. Eff. July 21, 1965

FormerLaw Notes:

See section 1 of Act 196 of 1917.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 54 cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1949–2026 · leading case: People v. Farquharson, 731 N.W.2d 797 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

People v. Farquharson, 731 N.W.2d 797 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 6× “MCL 767.3 grants the one-person grand juror certain powers, including subpoena power to: require such persons to attend before him as witnesses and answer such questions as the judge may require concerning any violation of law about which they may be questioned within the scope…”

People of Michigan v. Robert Monya Green, 913 N.W.2d 385 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 3× “Instead, defendant argues that the use of a one-person grand jury, see MCL 767.3 and MCL 767.4, violated his right to counsel and his right to confront the witnesses against him.”

In Re Colacasides, 150 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 1967). · cites it 14× “That the legislature was aware of the possible political consequences of such power is manifest in that part of CL 1948, § 767.3, as amended, PA 1965, No 251 (Stat Ann 1965 Cum Supp § 28.”

People v. McIntire, 599 N.W.2d 102 (Mich. 1999). · cites it 2× “1 MCL 767.3; MSA 28.943. 2 The prosecuting attorney’s one-sentence motion asked the circuit court “for an Order granting the witness, Charles McIntire, now present before the Grand Jury ordered in this session, complete immunity from any charges which would arise from the…”

Raymond R. Wiskotoni v. Michigan Nat'l Bank-West, 716 F.2d 378 (6th Cir. 1983). · cites it 2× “; one-man grand juries are authorized by Mich.Comp.Laws § 767.3 et seq. Witnesses are compelled to appear before the grand jury and may be punished for failure to appear and to testify.”

People v. Blume, 505 N.W.2d 843 (Mich. 1993). · cites it 2× “See also MCL 767.3; MSA 28.943. [6] See MCL 767.74; MSA 28.”

People v. McIntire, 591 N.W.2d 231 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “§ 767.3; MSA 28.943, and defendant, but not Fleck, was summoned to testify as a witness.”

Oman v. State, 737 N.E.2d 1131 (Ind. 2000). · cites it 2× “1997); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 767.3 (West Supp.”

State v. Reeder, 365 P.3d 1243 (Wash. 2015). “Reeder notes that Michigan has a similar SIJ statute. The Michigan statute requires the judge to ‘Rave probable cause to suspect that any crime” has been committed before such judge may make an order directing an inquiry into the complaint.”

People v. Hancock, 40 N.W.2d 689 (Mich. 1950). · cites it 3× “The basis of this motion is that the one-man grand jury statute (CL 1948, § 767.3 et seq. [Stat Ann § 28.943 et seq.”

People v. Hoffman, 518 N.W.2d 817 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994). “” 5 We also note that MCL 767.3; MSA 28.943 accorded defendant a statutory right to the presence of his counsel in the grand jury room, if he chose.”

In Re White, 65 N.W.2d 296 (Mich. 1955). · cites it 3× “This motion presents 2 questions: (1) Is a judge of the recorder’s court for the city of Detroit, sitting as a judge of the recorder’s court under CLS 1952, § 767.3 (Stat Ann 1953 Cum Supp § 28.943), disqualified by the provisions of CLS 1952, §767.”

Show all 54 citing cases →

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.