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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 767.75 (2026)

Indictment; certain defects; quashing not allowed; remedy.

✓ 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


767.75 Indictment; certain defects; quashing not allowed; remedy.

Sec. 75.

    No indictment shall be quashed, set aside or dismissed for any 1 or more of the following defects: (First) That there is a misjoinder of the parties accused; (Second) That there is a misjoinder of the offenses charged in the indictment, or duplicity therein; (Third) That any uncertainty exists therein. If the court be of the opinion that the first and second defects or either of them exist in any indictment, it may sever such indictment into separate indictments or informations or into separate counts as shall be proper. If the court be of the opinion that the third defect exists in any indictment, it may order that the indictment be amended to cure such defect.

History: 1927, Act 175, Eff. Sept. 5, 1927 ;-- CL 1929, 17289 ;-- CL 1948, 767.75

FormerLaw Notes:

    See section 3 of Act 138 of 1859, being CL 1871, § 7939; How., § 9550; CL 1897, § 11935; and CL 1915, § 15762.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1951–2022 · leading case: People v. Weathersby, 514 N.W.2d 493 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Weathersby, 514 N.W.2d 493 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994). “Pursuant to MCL 767.75; MSA 28.1015, no indictment may be quashed, set aside, or dismissed on the grounds that it contains an "uncertainty.”
People v. Slate, 250 N.W.2d 572 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). “, MCLA 767.75; MSA 28.1015. We would also suggest to bench and bar, in regard to the proper resolution of the same or similar issues in the future, that reference be made to the American Bar Association Standards relating to Joinder and Severance (Approved Draft, 1968), §§ 1.”
People v. Larco, 49 N.W.2d 358 (Mich. 1951). “It does not appear that the court was asked to compel the people to elect on which count they would proceed or that an order was specifically sought in accordance with the provisions of CL 1948, § 767.75 (Stat Ann § 28.1015) which reads as follows: “No indictment shall be…”
People v. Anderson, 269 N.W.2d 288 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978). “See MCL 767.75; MSA 28.1015, MCL 767.2; MSA 28.”
People v. Johns, 59 N.W.2d 20 (Mich. 1953). “CL 1948, § 767.75 (Stat Ann § 28.1015), grants authority to the trial court to order offenses charged in an information separated into counts, but the statute does not suggest or require that the offenses charged in the separate counts be subject to equal punishment.”
People v. Tobey, 231 N.W.2d 403 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975). “” Since the defendant in the instant case was not embarrassed in his defense by the joinder of the two counts of the same offense in a single trial, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to sever.”
People v. Morris, 179 N.W.2d 405 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 2× “5 MCLA § 767.75 (Stat Ann 1954 Eev §28.1015).”
People v. Smyers, 209 N.W.2d 281 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973). “” See also MCLA 767.75; MSA 28.1015. Defendant Trantham next questions the propriety of the people’s summation to the jury, the pertinent part of which reads: "Mr.”
People v. Kurzinski, 182 N.W.2d 779 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 2× “1 Furthermore, MCLA § 767.75 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1015) provides that if uncertainty exists in an indictment, the court may order an amendment to cure the defect.”
People of Michigan v. Steven Collins (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “75 provides that an indictment shall not be: quashed, set aside or dismissed for any 1 or more of the following defects: (First) That there is a misjoinder of the parties accused; (Second) That there is a misjoinder of the offenses charged in the indictment, or duplicity…”
20221208_C350955_58_350955.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “provides in relevant part: The court may at any time before, during or after the trial amend the indictment in respect to any defect, imperfection or omission in form or substance or of any variance with the evidence.”
People v. Palacios, 254 N.W.2d 873 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). “7 However, the unique facts of this case come within the principles announced long ago by Justice Christiancy in People v McKinney, 8 a case often cited in this area.”
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.