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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 767.48 (2026)

Indictment; necessity of negativing statutory exception.

✓ 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


767.48 Indictment; necessity of negativing statutory exception.

Sec. 48.

    No indictment for any offense created or defined by statute shall be deemed objectionable for the reason that it fails to negative any exception, excuse or proviso contained in the statute creating or defining the offense. The fact that the charge is made shall be considered as an allegation that no legal excuse for the doing of the act exists in the particular case.

History: 1927, Act 175, Eff. Sept. 5, 1927 ;-- CL 1929, 17262 ;-- CL 1948, 767.48

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1952–1977 · leading case: People v. Rios, 191 N.W.2d 297 (Mich. 1971).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Rios, 191 N.W.2d 297 (Mich. 1971). · cites it 10× “Baker (1952), 332 Mich 320 , held that under the authority of MCLA § 767.48 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.988) it was unnecessary for the people to prove negative allegations contained in the statute.”
People v. Nelson White, 181 N.W.2d 803 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 7× “MCLA § 767.48 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.988) provides: “No indictment for any offense created or defined by statute shall be deemed objectionable for the reason that it fails to negative any exception, excuse or proviso contained in the statute creating or defining the offense.”
People v. Dean, 253 N.W.2d 344 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 6× “No indictment for any offense created or defined by statute shall be deemed objectionable for the reason that it fails to negative any exception, excuse or proviso contained in the statute creating or defining the offense.”
People v. Baker, 51 N.W.2d 240 (Mich. 1952). · cites it 6× “The people also urge that under CL 1948, § 767.48, it was not necessary to aver the negative allegations mentioned in the statute and therefore not incumbent upon the people to prove the same.”
People v. Baker, 172 N.W.2d 892 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969). · cites it 6× “No claim is made by the people that Schrader was incorrectly decided or that under MCLA § 767.48 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.988) as construed in People v.”
People v. Thomas, 182 N.W.2d 100 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 5× “” We hold that MCLA § 767.48 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.988) is applicable in a prosecution for unlawful possession of narcotics as it is applicable in a prosecution for unlawful possession of barbiturates.”
People v. Albert White, 183 N.W.2d 606 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 2× “1 MCLA § 767.48 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.988).”
People v. Rios, 183 N.W.2d 321 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 2× “Baker (1952), 332 Mich 320 , held that under the authority of MCLA § 767.48 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.988) it was unnecessary for the people to prove negative allegations contained in the statute.”
People v. Moore, 186 N.W.2d 788 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971). · cites it 2× “3 MCLA § 767.48 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.988).”
People v. Downes, 212 N.W.2d 314 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973). “MCLA 767.48; MSA 28.988. Defendant contends that the uniform act’s references to and reliance upon Federal narcotics laws amounts to an unconstitutional delegation of state legislative power to Federal congress and agencies.”
People v. Williams, 193 N.W.2d 201 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971). · cites it 2× “Nelson White (1970), 26 Mich App 35 , this Court concluded that in light of MCLA § 767.48 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.988), it was not incumbent upon the people to prove that marijuana which was allegedly sold was nonexempt marijuana.”
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.