THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Act 175 of 1927
767.5 Proceedings before trial; failure of witnesses to appear or answer questions; hearing, penalty; commutation or suspension of sentence.
Sec. 5.
Any witness neglecting or refusing to appear in response to such summons or to answer any questions which such judge may require as material to such inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a contempt and after a public hearing in open court and conviction of such contempt, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $1,000.00 or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding 1 year or both at the discretion of the court: Provided, That if such witness after being so sentenced shall offer to appear before such judge to purge himself of such contempt, the judge shall cause such witness to be brought before him and, after examination of such witness, the judge may in his discretion commute or suspend the further execution of such sentence.
History: 1927, Act 175, Eff. Sept. 5, 1927 ;-- CL 1929, 17219 ;-- CL 1948, 767.5 ;-- Am. 1949, Act 311, Eff. Sept. 23, 1949 ;-- Am. 1951, Act 276, Eff. Sept. 28, 1951
Constitutionality Notes:
This section, in regard to a contemnor appearing before a judge to purge himself and the discretion of the judge to commute or suspend further execution of a sentence, insofar as criminal contempt is concerned, constitutes an unconstitutional delegation by the legislature to the judicial branch of government of a power which exists only in the executive. People v Joseph, 384 Mich 24; 179 NW2d 383 (1970).
FormerLaw Notes:
See section 3 of Act 196 of 1917.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases, 1955–2012 · leading case:
People v. Farquharson, 731 N.W.2d 797 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
People v. Farquharson, 731 N.W.2d 797 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “MCL 767.5. As can be seen above, both statutes provide mechanisms to subpoena witnesses to testify regarding circumstances surrounding the investigation of a felony.”
People v. Joseph, 179 N.W.2d 383 (Mich. 1970).
· cites it 6× “The issues presented by this appeal are: (1) Whether defendant, not having been granted immunity, properly invoked his privilege against self-incrimination to the propounded questions? (2) Whether the judgment of criminal contempt subsequent to the termination of the grand jury…”
People v. Bragg, 824 N.W.2d 170 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
“The chapter heading indicates that it contains statutes governing “grand juries, indictments, informations and proceedings before trial.”
In Re Colacasides, 148 N.W.2d 898 (Mich. Ct. App. 1967).
· cites it 2× “■ The one-man grand jury law has its own provisions for punishing contempts (CLS 1961, § 767.5 [Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.945]), which vary both as to possible sentence and procedure from those set forth in.”
People v. David Johnson, 283 N.W.2d 632 (Mich. 1979).
· cites it 3× “1 The order granting leave to appeal states the issue as: "Whether a defendant has a right to counsel in a civil contempt proceeding under MCL 767.5; MSA 28.945 and MCL 767.19c; MSA 28.”
In Re White, 65 N.W.2d 296 (Mich. 1955).
“944), in which it attempted to disqualify the grand juror from hearing a charge of contempt arising under CLS 1952, § 767.5 (Stat Ann 1953 Cum Supp § 28.945), it acted unconstitutionally and exceeded its powers in so doing.”
People v. Nowicki, 170 N.W.2d 187 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970).
“945) provides as follows: “Any witness neglecting or refusing to appear in response to such summons or to answer any questions which such judge may require as material to such inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a contempt and after a public hearing in open court and conviction…”
People v. Joseph, 165 N.W.2d 633 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969).
· cites it 4× “945): "Any witness neglecting or refusing to appear in response to such summons or to answer any questions which such judge may require as material to such inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a contempt and after a public hearing in open court and conviction *498 of such…”
People v. Giacalone, 170 N.W.2d 179 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969).
· cites it 3× “Because of his aforesaid conduct, a bench warrant was issued on August 23, 1966, by the grand juror charging appellee with criminal contempt under CLS 1961, § 767.5 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.945). On June 12, 1967, trial thereon was had before Judge Harry J.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 767.5(a) — 1 case
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.