THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Act 175 of 1927
767.6 Incriminating answers of witnesses; order granting immunity; use of truthful testimony or other information against witness in criminal case; transcript; applicability of secrecy provisions; scope of order.
Sec. 6.
(1) Upon inquiry, a witness shall not be required to answer any questions or be convicted for contempt upon refusal to do so If the answers might tend to incriminate him or her.
(2) Upon written motion by the prosecuting attorney or a duly authorized representative of the state in a proceeding described in section 3 of this chapter, the judge may enter a written order granting immunity to the witness. The order shall set forth verbatim the questions the witness refused to answer. A true copy of the motion and order shall be delivered to the witness before he or she answers the questions in the inquiry. The order granting immunity shall extend to all related questions which may be asked of the witness after entry of the order until the judge advises the witness that the immunity no longer applies.
(3) Truthful testimony compelled under the order granting immunity and any information derived directly or indirectly from that truthful testimony shall not be used against the witness in a criminal case, except for impeachment purposes or in a prosecution for perjury or otherwise failing to comply with the order.
(4) All questions and the witness's answers shall be transcribed under the judge's direction. A true copy of the transcript, duly certified by the judge, shall be delivered to the witness as soon as practicable.
(5) The provisions for secrecy provided for in section 3 of this chapter apply to all copies of the motion, order, and transcript delivered to the witness. However, the witness may disclose that information to his or her attorney if his or her testimony or any information derived directly or indirectly from that testimony is used against the witness in violation of subsection (3).
(6) An order granting immunity does not extend beyond the scope of an inquiry described in this section or beyond the particular questions set forth in the motion, order, or transcript.
History: 1927, Act 175, Eff. Sept. 5, 1927 ;-- CL 1929, 17220 ;-- CL 1948, 767.6 ;-- Am. 1949, Act 311, Eff. Sept. 23, 1949 ;-- Am. 1951, Act 276, Eff. Sept. 28, 1951 ;-- Am. 1999, Act 250, Imd. Eff. Dec. 28, 1999
FormerLaw Notes:
See section 4 of Act 196 of 1917.
Notes of Decisions
People of Michigan v. William Little, 499 Mich. 332 (Mich. 2016).
· cites it 23× “At issue in McIntire was the proper interpretation of transactional immunity for witnesses compelled to answer potentially incriminating questions under MCL 767.6. In light of the statute’s plain language at the time, the McIntire Court rejected the notion that a grant of…”
People v. McIntire, 591 N.W.2d 231 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 34× “[1] MCL 767.6; MSA 28.946. Defendant then testified that on the night of December 19, 1982, he was not with Fleck, but rather he was playing cards at the home of John Knight beginning at approximately 6:00 p.”
People v. McIntire, 599 N.W.2d 102 (Mich. 1999).
· cites it 7× “A majority of the Court of Appeals panel agreed that an obligation to provide truthful answers is an implicit condition of an immunity agreement under MCL 767.6; MSA 28.946. 5 6 Thus, reasoned the Court of Appeals, a grant of immunity is void where a witness *152 has testified…”
In Re Colacasides, 150 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 1967).
· cites it 24× “944), and CLS 1961, § 767.6 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.946), the pertinent provisions of which are italicized in the margin.”
Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Miskinis, 344 N.W.2d 788 (Mich. 1984).
· cites it 2× “That need can be satisfied through a prosecutorial grant of immunity to the person in possession of the documents. Federal prosecutors are empowered to grant immunity under 18 USC 6001-6003.”
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.” MCL 767.5a is flanked by statutes governing the contempt of witnesses who fail to appear or refuse to answer questions, MCL 767.”
People v. Johns, 183 N.W.2d 216 (Mich. 1971).
· cites it 2× “1 On motion of the Special Assistant Attorney General, the grand juror granted the defendant immunity under MCLA § 767.6 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev §28.946).”
People v. Joseph, 179 N.W.2d 383 (Mich. 1970).
· cites it 2× “Immunity from prosecution was not offered or granted to defendant pursuant to MCLA § 767.6 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.946).”
In Re Colacasides, 148 N.W.2d 898 (Mich. Ct. App. 1967).
· cites it 2× “See CLS 1961, § 767.6 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.946). Colacasides, nevertheless, refused to answer the questions, and he was then cited for contempt and a circuit judge other than the one who propounded the questions conducted a hearing thereon.”
People v. Parsons, 371 N.W.2d 440 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).
“MCL 767.6; MSA 28.946. This statute, like the federal witness immunity statute, leaves no room to argue about whether the witness has been "ordered” to testify and is triggered by the witness’s refusal to testify.”
People of Michigan v. Nevin Hughes (Mich. 2016).
· cites it 13× “At issue in McIntire was the proper interpretation of transactional immunity for witnesses compelled to answer potentially incriminating questions under MCL 767.6. In light of the statute’s plain language at the time, the McIntire Court rejected the notion that a grant of…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 767.6(3) — 3 cases
People of Michigan v. William Little, 499 Mich. 332 (Mich. 2016).
“At issue in McIntire was the proper interpretation of transactional immunity for witnesses compelled to answer potentially incriminating questions under MCL 767.6. In light of the statute’s plain language at the time, the McIntire Court rejected the notion that a grant of…”
People of Michigan v. Nevin Hughes (Mich. 2016).
“At issue in McIntire was the proper interpretation of transactional immunity for witnesses compelled to answer potentially incriminating questions under MCL 767.6. In light of the statute’s plain language at the time, the McIntire Court rejected the notion that a grant of…”
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.