THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Act 175 of 1927
767.93 Attendance from without the state; certificate; fee.
Sec. 93.
(1) If a person in a state, which by law provides for commanding persons within its borders to attend and testify in criminal prosecutions, or grand jury investigations commenced or about to commence, in this state, is a material witness in a prosecution pending in a court of record in this state, or in a grand jury investigation which has commenced or is about to commence, a judge of the court may issue a certificate under the seal of the court stating these facts and specifying the number of days the witness will be required. The certificate may include a recommendation that the witness be taken into immediate custody and delivered to an officer of this state to assure his attendance in this state. This certificate shall be presented to a judge of a court of record in the county in which the witness is found.
(2) If the witness is summoned to attend and testify in this state he shall be tendered the sum of 10 cents for each mile of the ordinary traveled route to and from the court where the prosecution or investigation is being held and $5.00 for each day that he is required to travel and attend as a witness. A witness who has appeared in accordance with the provisions of the summons shall not be required to remain within this state longer than the period stated in the certificate, unless otherwise ordered by the court. If the witness, after coming into this state, fails without good cause to attend and testify as directed in the summons, he shall be punished in the manner provided for the punishment of any witness who disobeys a summons issued from a court of record in this state.
History: Add. 1970, Act 232, Imd. Eff. Dec. 3, 1970
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases, 1980–2014 · leading case:
People v. Duenaz, 854 N.W.2d 531 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
People v. Duenaz, 854 N.W.2d 531 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
“40a(4) requires a showing of good cause for removing a witness from the prosecution’s witness list. Forgetting to contact or subpoena a witness is likely not “good cause.”
People v. Lueth, 660 N.W.2d 322 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
“Defendant has failed to demonstrate outcome determinative plain error here.”
People v. Dye, 427 N.W.2d 501 (Mich. 1988).
· cites it 2× “[MCL 767.93; MSA 28.1023(193).] Sections 91 to 95 constitute the uniform act to secure the attendance of witnesses from without a state in criminal proceedings and shall be so interpreted and construed as to effectuate their general purposes to make uniform the law of the states…”
Brown v. Berghuis, 638 F. Supp. 2d 795 (E.D. Mich. 2009).
· cites it 2× “First, petitioner cannot establish that he was denied his right to compulsory process because he has failed to show that he followed the procedures for securing the attendance of Fort as a witness. As the Michigan Court of Appeals noted, petitioner could have used the procedures…”
People v. Loyer, 425 N.W.2d 714 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 2× “The certificate may include a recommendation that the witness be taken into immediate custody and delivered to an officer of this state to assure his attendance in this state.”
People v. Freeland, 300 N.W.2d 616 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 2× “1023(193)(1) states: "If a person in a state, which by law provides for commanding persons within its borders to attend and testify in criminal prosecutions, or grand jury investigations commenced or about to commence, in this state, is a material witness in a prosecution…”
People v. McFall, 569 N.W.2d 828 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997).
“The certificate may include a recommendation that the witness be taken into immediate custody and delivered to an officer of this state to assure his attendance in this state.”
People v. Williams, 318 N.W.2d 671 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).
“MCL 767.93; MSA 28.1023(193) states in part: "If a person in a state, which by law provides for commanding persons within its borders to attend and testify in criminal prosecutions, or grand jury investigations commenced or about to commence, in this state, is a material witness…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 767.93(1) — 5 cases
People v. Duenaz, 854 N.W.2d 531 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
“40a(4) requires a showing of good cause for removing a witness from the prosecution’s witness list. Forgetting to contact or subpoena a witness is likely not “good cause.”
People v. Lueth, 660 N.W.2d 322 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
“Defendant has failed to demonstrate outcome determinative plain error here.”
People v. Loyer, 425 N.W.2d 714 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).
“The certificate may include a recommendation that the witness be taken into immediate custody and delivered to an officer of this state to assure his attendance in this state.”
People v. Freeland, 300 N.W.2d 616 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980).
“1023(193)(1) states: "If a person in a state, which by law provides for commanding persons within its borders to attend and testify in criminal prosecutions, or grand jury investigations commenced or about to commence, in this state, is a material witness in a prosecution…”
People v. McFall, 569 N.W.2d 828 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997).
“The certificate may include a recommendation that the witness be taken into immediate custody and delivered to an officer of this state to assure his attendance in this state.”
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.