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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 767.40a (2026)

Attaching list of witnesses to filed information; disclosing names of res gestae witnesses; sending list to defendant or defendant's attorney; additions or deletions from list; request for assistance in locating and serving process on witness; objection to request; hearing; impeachment or cross-examination of witness.

✓ 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


767.40a Attaching list of witnesses to filed information; disclosing names of res gestae witnesses; sending list to defendant or defendant's attorney; additions or deletions from list; request for assistance in locating and serving process on witness; objection to request; hearing; impeachment or cross-examination of witness.

Sec. 40a.

    (1)  The prosecuting attorney shall attach to the filed information a list of all witnesses known to the prosecuting attorney who might be called at trial and all res gestae witnesses known to the prosecuting attorney or investigating law enforcement officers.

    (2) The prosecuting attorney shall be under a continuing duty to disclose the names of any further res gestae witnesses as they become known.

    (3) Not less than 30 days before the trial, the prosecuting attorney shall send to the defendant or his or her attorney a list of the witnesses the prosecuting attorney intends to produce at trial.

    (4) The prosecuting attorney may add or delete from the list of witnesses he or she intends to call at trial at any time upon leave of the court and for good cause shown or by stipulation of the parties.

    (5) The prosecuting attorney or investigative law enforcement agency shall provide to the defendant, or defense counsel, upon request, reasonable assistance, including investigative assistance, as may be necessary to locate and serve process upon a witness. The request for assistance shall be made in writing by defendant or defense counsel not less than 10 days before the trial of the case or at such other time as the court directs. If the prosecuting attorney objects to a request by the defendant on the grounds that it is unreasonable, the prosecuting attorney shall file a pretrial motion before the court to hold a hearing to determine the reasonableness of the request.

    (6) Any party may within the discretion of the court impeach or cross-examine any witnesses as though the witness had been called by another party.

History: Add. 1941, Act 336, Eff. Jan. 10, 1942 ;-- CL 1948, 767.40a ;-- Am. 1986, Act 46, Eff. July 1, 1986

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 239 cases (49 in the last 5 years), 1954–2026 · leading case: People v. Burwick, 537 N.W.2d 813 (Mich. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Burwick, 537 N.W.2d 813 (Mich. 1995). · cites it 40× “The statute in question, MCL 767.40a; MSA 28.980(1), does not impose an obligation on the prosecutor to discover and produce unknown witnesses, either by the exercise of due diligence or some lesser burden the dissent would engraft upon it.”
People v. Koonce, 648 N.W.2d 153 (Mich. 2002). · cites it 16× “7 The Legislature subsequently enacted 1941 PA 336 (MCL 767.40a), which provided that any res gestae witness could be impeached by the prosecution, 8 even while continuing to impose on the prosecutor the duty to fist all res gestae witnesses on the information and produce them…”
People v. Callon, 662 N.W.2d 501 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 7× “Further, because the statute permits a prosecutor to file his trial witness list thirty days before trial, and permits amendment on leave of the trial court at any time for good cause, defense counsel could not rely on the prosecutor’s negligence to preclude testimony of a…”
People v. Duenaz, 854 N.W.2d 531 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 6× “Clearly, presenting live testimony is an important factor for determining whether or not a witness is credible, but here the information in Penshorn’s report was undisputed.”
People v. Steanhouse, 880 N.W.2d 297 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 5× “Contrary to defendant’s argument on appeal, following the enactment of MCL 767.40a, the prosecution no longer has an affirmative duty to present the “entire res gestae,” or call at trial all of the witnesses who were present when a crime occurred.”
People v. Steele, 769 N.W.2d 256 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “” MCL 767.40a(4) (emphasis added). The prosecution was granted permission by the trial court, in chambers, to remove the witness from its witness list at the pretrial conference on April 25, 2007.”
People v. Perez, 670 N.W.2d 655 (Mich. 2003). · cites it 6× “Further, the Court of Appeals added that, in light of the 1986 amendments of MCL 767.40a and this Court’s opinion in People v Burwick, 450 Mich 281 ; 537 NW2d 813 (1995), it did “not believe that CJI2d 5.”
People v. Cook, 702 N.W.2d 613 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 11× “Our Supreme Court remanded this case to us to consider the question whether Pearson remains good law in light of the 1986 amendment of MCL 767.40a. 1 We hold that Pearson is no longer good *292 law in light of the statute, and, thus, we reverse.”
People v. Bean, 580 N.W.2d 390 (Mich. 1998). · cites it 6× “§ 767.40a; M.S.A.§ 28.980(1) the Legislature eliminated the court-created requirement, unique "in the country if not the world," [17] that the prosecuting attorney use "due diligence" to produce all res gestae witnesses.”
People v. Hana, 524 N.W.2d 682 (Mich. 1994). · cites it 4× “MCL 767.40a(3); MSA 28.980(1)(3) requires the prosecutor to send to the defendants, not less than thirty days before trial, a list of the witnesses the prosecutor intends to produce at trial.”
People v. Long, 633 N.W.2d 843 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 3× “Thus, the prosecution’s burden under MCL 767.40a is to give initial and continuing notice of all known res gestae witnesses, identify witnesses the prosecutor intends to produce, and provide law enforcement assistance to investigate and produce witnesses the defense re *586…”
People v. DeMeyers, 454 N.W.2d 202 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 8× “Attached to the information charging defendant was a list of witnesses pursuant to MCL 767.40a; MSA 28.980(1). In addition to the investigating officers, only Dennis Zank, the clerk on duty during the robbery, and Ramiro Rodriguez, a customer present at the time, were named.”
Show all 239 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 767.40a(1) — 45 cases
People v. Burwick, 537 N.W.2d 813 (Mich. 1995). “The statute in question, MCL 767.40a; MSA 28.980(1), does not impose an obligation on the prosecutor to discover and produce unknown witnesses, either by the exercise of due diligence or some lesser burden the dissent would engraft upon it.”
People v. Duenaz, 854 N.W.2d 531 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “Clearly, presenting live testimony is an important factor for determining whether or not a witness is credible, but here the information in Penshorn’s report was undisputed.”
People v. Koonce, 648 N.W.2d 153 (Mich. 2002). “7 The Legislature subsequently enacted 1941 PA 336 (MCL 767.40a), which provided that any res gestae witness could be impeached by the prosecution, 8 even while continuing to impose on the prosecutor the duty to fist all res gestae witnesses on the information and produce them…”
People v. Hill, 766 N.W.2d 17 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).
People v. Calhoun, 444 N.W.2d 232 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 767.40a(2) — 11 cases
People v. Burwick, 537 N.W.2d 813 (Mich. 1995). “The statute in question, MCL 767.40a; MSA 28.980(1), does not impose an obligation on the prosecutor to discover and produce unknown witnesses, either by the exercise of due diligence or some lesser burden the dissent would engraft upon it.”
People v. Perez, 662 N.W.2d 446 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
People of Michigan v. Isaac Lawrence Bowling (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
People of Michigan v. Donnie Everett (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
People of Michigan v. Devon Deshawn-Gene Williams (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 767.40a(3) — 90 cases
People v. Burwick, 537 N.W.2d 813 (Mich. 1995). “The statute in question, MCL 767.40a; MSA 28.980(1), does not impose an obligation on the prosecutor to discover and produce unknown witnesses, either by the exercise of due diligence or some lesser burden the dissent would engraft upon it.”
People v. Callon, 662 N.W.2d 501 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “Further, because the statute permits a prosecutor to file his trial witness list thirty days before trial, and permits amendment on leave of the trial court at any time for good cause, defense counsel could not rely on the prosecutor’s negligence to preclude testimony of a…”
People v. Hana, 524 N.W.2d 682 (Mich. 1994). “MCL 767.40a(3); MSA 28.980(1)(3) requires the prosecutor to send to the defendants, not less than thirty days before trial, a list of the witnesses the prosecutor intends to produce at trial.”
People v. Duenaz, 854 N.W.2d 531 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “Clearly, presenting live testimony is an important factor for determining whether or not a witness is credible, but here the information in Penshorn’s report was undisputed.”
People v. Bean, 580 N.W.2d 390 (Mich. 1998). “§ 767.40a; M.S.A.§ 28.980(1) the Legislature eliminated the court-created requirement, unique "in the country if not the world," [17] that the prosecuting attorney use "due diligence" to produce all res gestae witnesses.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 767.40a(4) — 69 cases
People v. Burwick, 537 N.W.2d 813 (Mich. 1995). “The statute in question, MCL 767.40a; MSA 28.980(1), does not impose an obligation on the prosecutor to discover and produce unknown witnesses, either by the exercise of due diligence or some lesser burden the dissent would engraft upon it.”
People v. Callon, 662 N.W.2d 501 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “Further, because the statute permits a prosecutor to file his trial witness list thirty days before trial, and permits amendment on leave of the trial court at any time for good cause, defense counsel could not rely on the prosecutor’s negligence to preclude testimony of a…”
People v. Steele, 769 N.W.2d 256 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “” MCL 767.40a(4) (emphasis added). The prosecution was granted permission by the trial court, in chambers, to remove the witness from its witness list at the pretrial conference on April 25, 2007.”
People v. Hana, 524 N.W.2d 682 (Mich. 1994). “MCL 767.40a(3); MSA 28.980(1)(3) requires the prosecutor to send to the defendants, not less than thirty days before trial, a list of the witnesses the prosecutor intends to produce at trial.”
People v. Duenaz, 854 N.W.2d 531 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “Clearly, presenting live testimony is an important factor for determining whether or not a witness is credible, but here the information in Penshorn’s report was undisputed.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 767.40a(5) — 47 cases
People v. Koonce, 648 N.W.2d 153 (Mich. 2002). “7 The Legislature subsequently enacted 1941 PA 336 (MCL 767.40a), which provided that any res gestae witness could be impeached by the prosecution, 8 even while continuing to impose on the prosecutor the duty to fist all res gestae witnesses on the information and produce them…”
People v. Burwick, 537 N.W.2d 813 (Mich. 1995). “The statute in question, MCL 767.40a; MSA 28.980(1), does not impose an obligation on the prosecutor to discover and produce unknown witnesses, either by the exercise of due diligence or some lesser burden the dissent would engraft upon it.”
People v. Callon, 662 N.W.2d 501 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “Further, because the statute permits a prosecutor to file his trial witness list thirty days before trial, and permits amendment on leave of the trial court at any time for good cause, defense counsel could not rely on the prosecutor’s negligence to preclude testimony of a…”
People v. Steanhouse, 880 N.W.2d 297 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “Contrary to defendant’s argument on appeal, following the enactment of MCL 767.40a, the prosecution no longer has an affirmative duty to present the “entire res gestae,” or call at trial all of the witnesses who were present when a crime occurred.”
People v. Steele, 769 N.W.2d 256 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “” MCL 767.40a(4) (emphasis added). The prosecution was granted permission by the trial court, in chambers, to remove the witness from its witness list at the pretrial conference on April 25, 2007.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 767.40a(6) — 5 cases
People v. Jenkins, 537 N.W.2d 828 (Mich. 1995).
People v. Koonce, 648 N.W.2d 153 (Mich. 2002). “7 The Legislature subsequently enacted 1941 PA 336 (MCL 767.40a), which provided that any res gestae witness could be impeached by the prosecution, 8 even while continuing to impose on the prosecutor the duty to fist all res gestae witnesses on the information and produce them…”
People v. Gilbert, 455 N.W.2d 731 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990).
People v. Stanton, 476 N.W.2d 477 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991).
People of Michigan v. Shikisha Monet Tidmore (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 767.40a(I) — 1 case
People v. Long, 633 N.W.2d 843 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). “Thus, the prosecution’s burden under MCL 767.40a is to give initial and continuing notice of all known res gestae witnesses, identify witnesses the prosecutor intends to produce, and provide law enforcement assistance to investigate and produce witnesses the defense re *586…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 767.40a(l) — 9 cases
People v. Koonce, 648 N.W.2d 153 (Mich. 2002). “7 The Legislature subsequently enacted 1941 PA 336 (MCL 767.40a), which provided that any res gestae witness could be impeached by the prosecution, 8 even while continuing to impose on the prosecutor the duty to fist all res gestae witnesses on the information and produce them…”
People v. Callon, 662 N.W.2d 501 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “Further, because the statute permits a prosecutor to file his trial witness list thirty days before trial, and permits amendment on leave of the trial court at any time for good cause, defense counsel could not rely on the prosecutor’s negligence to preclude testimony of a…”
People v. Steanhouse, 880 N.W.2d 297 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “Contrary to defendant’s argument on appeal, following the enactment of MCL 767.40a, the prosecution no longer has an affirmative duty to present the “entire res gestae,” or call at trial all of the witnesses who were present when a crime occurred.”
People v. Steele, 769 N.W.2d 256 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “” MCL 767.40a(4) (emphasis added). The prosecution was granted permission by the trial court, in chambers, to remove the witness from its witness list at the pretrial conference on April 25, 2007.”
Grays v. Lafler, 618 F. Supp. 2d 736 (W.D. Mich. 2008).
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.