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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 767.51 (2026)

Indictment; allegation of time.

✓ 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


767.51 Indictment; allegation of time.

Sec. 51.

    Except insofar as time is an element of the offense charged, any allegation of the time of the commission of the offense, whether stated absolutely or under a videlicet, shall be sufficient to sustain proof of the charge at any time before or after the date or dates alleged, prior to the finding of the indictment or the filing of the complaint and within the period of limitations provided by law: Provided, That the court may on motion require the prosecution to state the time or identify the occasion as nearly as the circumstances will permit, to enable the accused to meet the charge.

History: 1927, Act 175, Eff. Sept. 5, 1927 ;-- CL 1929, 17265 ;-- CL 1948, 767.51

FormerLaw Notes:

    See section 8 of Act 77 of 1855, being CL 1857, § 6054; CL 1871, § 7923; How., § 9534; CL 1897, § 11919; and CL 1915, § 15746.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1958–2022 · leading case: People v. Gaines, 306 Mich. App. 289 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Gaines, 306 Mich. App. 289 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “51 provides: Except insofar as time is an element of the offense charged, any allegation of the time of the commission of the offense, whether stated absolutely or under a videlicet, shall be sufficient to sustain proof of the charge at any time before or after the date or dates…”
People v. Bailey, 873 N.W.2d 855 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “” MCL 767.51 further provides “[t]hat the court may on motion require the prosecution to state the time or identify the occasion as nearly as the circumstances will permit, to enable the accused to meet the charge.”
People v. Naugle, 393 N.W.2d 592 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 4× “In this matter we have the opportunity, for the first time, to set forth and describe the degree of specificity of the stated time or identity of the offense mandated by the following language in MCL 767.51; MSA 28.991: [T]he court may on motion require the prosecution to state…”
People v. Howell, 238 N.W.2d 148 (Mich. 1976). “Judge Brennan in dissent said that in a sex offense case involving a young child the prosecution should not be bound to prove that the act was committed on a certain date because of the difficulty children usually have remembering precise dates.”
People v. Levy, 184 N.W.2d 325 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 4× “MCLA §767.51 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.991) provides: “Except insofar as time is an element of the offense charged, any allegation of the time of the commission of the offense, whether stated absolutely or under a videlicet, shall be sufficient to sustain proof of the charge at…”
People v. Miller, 418 N.W.2d 668 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). “Also relevant is MCL 767.51; MSA 28.991, which, in relevant part, provides: [T]he court may on motion require the prosecution to state the time or identify the occasion [of the offense] as nearly as the circumstances will permit, to enable the accused to meet the charge.”
Sprague v. Walter, 516 A.2d 706 (Pa. 1986). “§ 9-112 (1984); Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. § 767.51 (West 1982); Minn.”
People v. Bowyer, 310 N.W.2d 445 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). “Defendant’s contention also fails on its merits because a time variance is permissible unless time is an element of the offense or of the essence of the offense, see MCL 767.51; MSA 28.991, and neither exception applies here.”
Ringo v. Richardson, 278 N.W.2d 717 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). “985, MCL 767.51; MSA 28.991, People v Howell, 396 Mich 16 ; 238 NW2d 148 (1976).”
People v. Sherrod, 188 N.W.2d 221 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971). · cites it 2× “Had the defendant believed it necessary to fix the date, time, and place for the purpose of giving notice of an alibi defense, he should have moved the circuit court for an appropriate order either under the provisions of MCLA § 767.51 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.991) or under the…”
People v. Smith, 227 N.W.2d 233 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 2× “MCLA 767.51; MSA 28.991 states: "Except insofar as time is an element of the offense charged, any allegation of the time of the commission of the offense, whether stated absolutely or under a videlicet, shall be sufficient to sustain proof of the charge at any time before or…”
People v. Laslo, 259 N.W.2d 448 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). “985, MCLA 767.51; MSA 28.991. Finally, it is not essential that the prosecution produce in court every item of stolen property listed in the information; the exhibits produced and identified by the owner as having been stolen from his house were sufficient to sustain the…”
Show all 18 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.