Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 767 / Act 175 of 1927
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 767.4 (2026)

Proceedings before trial; apprehension of suspect; disqualification as examining magistrate; finding as to misconduct in office; disclosures, penalty, exceptions; report of no finding of criminal guilt; period of inquiry; successor judge, appointment.

✓ 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


767.4 Proceedings before trial; apprehension of suspect; disqualification as examining magistrate; finding as to misconduct in office; disclosures, penalty, exceptions; report of no finding of criminal guilt; period of inquiry; successor judge, appointment.

Sec. 4.

    If upon such inquiry the judge shall be satisfied that any offense has been committed and that there is probable cause to suspect any person to be guilty thereof, he may cause the apprehension of such person by proper process and, upon the return of such process served or executed, the judge having jurisdiction shall proceed with the case, matter or proceeding in like manner as upon formal complaint. The judge conducting the inquiry under section 3 shall be disqualified from acting as the examining magistrate in connection with the hearing on the complaint or indictment, or from presiding at any trial arising therefrom, or from hearing any motion to dismiss or quash any complaint or indictment, or from hearing any charge of contempt under section 5, except alleged contempt for neglect or refusal to appear in response to a summons or subpoena. If upon such inquiry the judge shall find from the evidence that there is probable cause to believe that any public officer, elective or appointive and subject to removal by law, has been guilty of misfeasance or malfeasance in office or wilful neglect of duty or of any other offense prescribed as a ground of removal, the judge shall make a written finding setting up the offense so found and shall serve said finding upon the public officer, public board or body having jurisdiction under the law to conduct removal proceedings against the officer. The finding shall be a sufficient complaint as a basis for removal of said officer and the public officer, public board or public body having jurisdiction of removal proceedings against the officer shall proceed in the method prescribed by law for a hearing and determination of said charges. Except in cases of prosecutions for contempt or perjury against witnesses who may have been summoned before the judge conducting such inquiry, or for the purpose of determining whether the testimony of a witness examined before the judge is consistent with or different from the testimony given by such witness before a court in any subsequent proceeding, or in cases of disciplinary action against attorneys and counselors in this state, any judge conducting the inquiry, any prosecuting attorney and other persons who may at the discretion of the judge be admitted to such inquiry, who shall while conducting such inquiry or while in the services of the judge or after his services with the judge shall have been discontinued, utter or publish any statement pertaining to any information or evidence involved in the inquiry, or who shall disclose the fact that any indictment for a felony has been found against any person not in custody or under recognizance, or who shall disclose that any person has been questioned or summoned in connection with the inquiry, who shall disclose or publish or cause to be published any of the proceedings of the inquiry otherwise than by issuing or executing processes prior to the indictment, or shall disclose, publish or cause to be published any comment, opinion or conclusions related to the proceedings of the inquiry, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not more than 1 year or by a fine of not less than $100.00 nor more than $1,000.00, or both fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court, and the offense when committed by a public official shall also constitute malfeasance in office. The limitations, restrictions and penalties relating to the uttering, publishing or disclosing of any statement pertaining to any information or evidence, imposed by this section, do not apply to disclosures of information or evidence made by a judge conducting such an investigation to another judge concurrently conducting an investigation as provided in section 3. Upon the termination of the inquiry if the judge shall make no presentment of crime or wrongdoing as to any person whose apprehension or removal from office he has not so caused, he may, in his discretion, with the consent of the person who may be named, file with the clerk of the county in which such inquiry has been conducted, a report of no finding of criminal guilt as to any person or persons involved in such inquiry, either as witness or otherwise, whose involvement in such inquiry has become public.

    No inquiry or proceeding under this chapter shall continue longer than 6 months unless extended by specific order of the judge or his successor for an additional period not to exceed 6 months.

    In the event any judge conducting such inquiry shall be unable to continue because of physical disability, disqualification, termination of office or death, the presiding circuit judge of Michigan shall appoint a successor.

History: 1927, Act 175, Eff. Sept. 5, 1927 ;-- CL 1929, 17218 ;-- Am. 1947, Act 33, Imd. Eff. Apr. 4, 1947 ;-- CL 1948, 767.4 ;-- Am. 1949, Act 311, Eff. Sept. 23, 1949 ;-- Am. 1951, Act 276, Eff. Sept. 28, 1951 ;-- Am. 1967, Act 70, Eff. Nov. 2, 1967

FormerLaw Notes:

    See section 2 of Act 196 of 1917 and Act 395 of 1921.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1955–2026 · leading case: In Re Colacasides, 150 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 1967).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Colacasides, 150 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 1967). · cites it 19× “His theory is that the statute, CLS 1961, § 767.4 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.944), imposes a 12-month time limit upon grand juror inquiry into the subject matter of any granted petition for such inquiry and that no subsequent grand juror thereafter can investigate the same subject…”
People of Michigan v. Robert Monya Green, 913 N.W.2d 385 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 3× “3 and MCL 767.4, violated his right to counsel and his right to confront the witnesses against him.”
People v. Bellanca, 194 N.W.2d 863 (Mich. 1972). · cites it 4× “Marginally quoted are three sections of the statute, MCLA 767.4, 767.4a, and 767.6a; MSA 28.944, 28.”
People v. Weathersby, 514 N.W.2d 493 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 3× “Pursuant to MCL 767.4; MSA 28.944, grand juror inquiries and *105 proceedings are limited to six months unless the court allows an extension for an additional period not to exceed six months.”
People v. Duncan, 201 N.W.2d 629 (Mich. 1972). · cites it 2× “( 1927 PA 175 , ch VII, § 4, and MCLA 767.4; MSA 28.944.) Today, a preliminary examination is rarely accorded prior to a grand jury indictment since a grand jury is no longer the sole means by which the people can proceed against one accused of crime and its use is largely…”
People v. Fields, 216 N.W.2d 51 (Mich. 1974). · cites it 2× “(b) Names of additional witnesses may be added to an information before or during the trial (MCLA 767.4; MSA 28.980) and additional alibi or insanity defense witnesses may be added (MCLA 768.”
In Re White, 65 N.W.2d 296 (Mich. 1955). · cites it 3× “Counsel for respondent entered an objection to the proceedings before Judge O’Hara for the reason that Judge O’Hara, as recorder’s judge, was disqualified from hearing a contempt of this nature and based his objections upon CLS 1952, §767.4 (Stat Ann 1953 Cum Supp § 28.944),…”
People of Michigan v. Richard Louis Baird (Mich. 2022). · cites it 44× “3 and MCL 767.4 did not confer the one-man grand jury with charging authority, and that those statutes violated the separation-of- powers doctrine and the right to due process; the Genesee Circuit Court denied the motion.”
People of Michigan v. Nicolas Lyon (Mich. 2022). · cites it 44× “3 and MCL 767.4 did not confer the one-man grand jury with charging authority, and that those statutes violated the separation-of- powers doctrine and the right to due process; the Genesee Circuit Court denied the motion.”
People of Michigan v. Nancy Peeler (Mich. 2022). · cites it 44× “3 and MCL 767.4 did not confer the one-man grand jury with charging authority, and that those statutes violated the separation-of- powers doctrine and the right to due process; the Genesee Circuit Court denied the motion.”
People of Michigan v. Richard Louis Baird (Mich. 2022). · cites it 44× “3 and MCL 767.4 did not confer the one-man grand jury with charging authority, and that those statutes violated the separation-of- powers doctrine and the right to due process; the Genesee Circuit Court denied the motion.”
People of Michigan v. Nicolas Lyon (Mich. 2022). · cites it 44× “3 and MCL 767.4 did not confer the one-man grand jury with charging authority, and that those statutes violated the separation-of- powers doctrine and the right to due process; the Genesee Circuit Court denied the motion.”
Show all 31 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.