THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Act 175 of 1927
767A.5 Appearance before prosecuting attorney; administration of oaths and affirmations; right to legal counsel; testimony with respect to records, documents or physical evidence; informing person of rights against self-incrimination; furnishing copy of testimony to defendant; effect of failure to provide copy of testimony; furnishing copy of testimony after direct examination of witness.
Sec. 5.
(1) A person properly served with an investigative subpoena under this chapter shall appear before the prosecuting attorney and answer questions concerning the felony being investigated or produce any records, documents, or physical evidence he or she is required to produce.
(2) The prosecuting attorney may administer oaths and affirmations in the manner prescribed by law to implement this chapter.
(3) Any person may have legal counsel present in the room in which the inquiry is held. The person may discuss fully with his or her legal counsel any matter relating to the person's part in the inquiry without being subject to citation for contempt.
(4) The prosecuting attorney may require a person having knowledge of any records, documents, or physical evidence subpoenaed under this chapter to testify under oath or acknowledgment with respect to those records, documents, or physical evidence.
(5) The prosecuting attorney shall inform the person of his or her constitutional rights regarding compulsory self-incrimination before asking any questions under an investigative subpoena. This subsection does not apply if the person is granted immunity under section 7.
(6) If a criminal charge is filed by the prosecuting attorney based upon information obtained pursuant to this chapter, upon the defendant's motion made not later than 21 days after the defendant is arraigned on the charge, the trial judge shall direct the prosecuting attorney to furnish to the defendant the testimony the defendant gave regarding the crime with which he or she is charged and may direct the prosecuting attorney to furnish to the defendant the testimony any witness who will testify at the trial gave the prosecuting attorney pursuant to this chapter regarding that crime except those portions that are irrelevant or immaterial, or that are excluded for other good cause shown. If the defendant requests the testimony of a witness pursuant to this section and the trial judge directs the prosecuting attorney to furnish to the defendant a copy of that witness's testimony, the prosecuting attorney shall furnish a copy of the testimony not later than 14 days before trial. If the prosecuting attorney fails or refuses to furnish a copy of the testimony to the defendant pursuant to this subsection, the prosecuting attorney may be barred from calling that witness to testify at the defendant's trial.
(7) If the trial judge has not directed the prosecuting attorney to furnish a copy of a witness's testimony to the defendant before trial, the prosecuting attorney shall, upon the defendant's request, furnish a copy of that testimony to the defendant after direct examination of that witness at trial has been completed.
History: Add. 1995, Act 148, Eff. Oct. 1, 1995
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
15
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1998–2025 · 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 8× “19g; MCL 767A.5. Because of the similarities between a grand jury proceeding and an investigative subpoena hearing, we find that testimony given at an investigative subpoena hearing qualifies as "[t]estimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different…”
Truel v. City of Dearborn, 804 N.W.2d 744 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 4× “” MCL 767A.5(1). The prosecutor may; with court approval, grant immunity to a person “whom the prosecuting attorney intends to require to give testimony concerning” the matter under investigation.”
People v. Seals, 776 N.W.2d 314 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).
“5 provides, in part: *7 (1) A person properly served with an investigative subpoena under this chapter shall appear before the prosecuting attorney and answer questions concerning the felony being investigated or produce any records, documents, or physical evidence he or she is…”
People v. Pruitt, 580 N.W.2d 462 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 12× “” MCL 767A.5(1); MSA 28.1023A(5)(1). A person who refuses to answer any question or to produce any record, document, or physical evidence may be ordered to do so by the judge who authorized the issuance of the subpoena, MCL 767A.”
People v. Stevens, 610 N.W.2d 881 (Mich. 2000).
· cites it 2× “NOTES [1] MCL 767A.5(5); MSA 28.1023(A)(5)(5) requires the prosecuting attorney to inform the person being interviewed of the person's constitutional rights regarding self-incrimination before asking questions under an investigative subpoena.”
People v. Gadomski, 731 N.W.2d 466 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
“MCL 767A.5(6). 3 That the Legislature expressly identified and afforded certain rights to defendant strongly indicates that it did not intend to afford defendant an additional right to challenge the subpoena.”
People of Michigan v. Ramon Catrell Logan II (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 15× “In its interpretation of MCL 767A.5, the Court in Truel did not hold that the defendants were not entitled to the transcripts of the four officers because the officers would not be called to testify in plaintiff’s WPA action against defendants.”
People of Michigan v. James Anthony Reeves (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 7× “INVESTIGATIVE SUBPOENA TRANSCRIPTS Defendant next contends in his Standard 4 brief that the prosecutor withheld the transcript of Thornton’s statements pursuant to an investigative subpoena and that this is in violation of MCL 767A.5, that the trial judge violated the same…”
People of Michigan v. William Gale Melendez (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 4× “2, “the judge determines there is reasonable cause to believe a felony has been committed,” and “the judge determines there is reasonable cause to believe that .”
People of Michigan v. William Gale Melendez (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 4× “2, “the judge determines there is reasonable cause to believe a felony has been committed,” and “the judge determines there is reasonable cause to believe that .”
People of Michigan v. Malcolm Xavier Jeffries (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 3× “And MCL 767A.5(3) states that the person being examined “may have legal counsel present in the room in which the inquiry is held” and that the person “may discuss fully with his or her legal counsel any matter relating to the person’s part in the inquiry without being subject to…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 767A.5(1) — 7 cases
People v. Farquharson, 731 N.W.2d 797 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
“19g; MCL 767A.5. Because of the similarities between a grand jury proceeding and an investigative subpoena hearing, we find that testimony given at an investigative subpoena hearing qualifies as "[t]estimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different…”
Truel v. City of Dearborn, 804 N.W.2d 744 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
“” MCL 767A.5(1). The prosecutor may; with court approval, grant immunity to a person “whom the prosecuting attorney intends to require to give testimony concerning” the matter under investigation.”
People v. Pruitt, 580 N.W.2d 462 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
“” MCL 767A.5(1); MSA 28.1023A(5)(1). A person who refuses to answer any question or to produce any record, document, or physical evidence may be ordered to do so by the judge who authorized the issuance of the subpoena, MCL 767A.”
People of Michigan v. William Gale Melendez (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“2, “the judge determines there is reasonable cause to believe a felony has been committed,” and “the judge determines there is reasonable cause to believe that .”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 767A.5(2) — 1 case
People v. Farquharson, 731 N.W.2d 797 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
“19g; MCL 767A.5. Because of the similarities between a grand jury proceeding and an investigative subpoena hearing, we find that testimony given at an investigative subpoena hearing qualifies as "[t]estimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 767A.5(3) — 2 cases
People of Michigan v. Malcolm Xavier Jeffries (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“And MCL 767A.5(3) states that the person being examined “may have legal counsel present in the room in which the inquiry is held” and that the person “may discuss fully with his or her legal counsel any matter relating to the person’s part in the inquiry without being subject to…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 767A.5(5) — 6 cases
People v. Farquharson, 731 N.W.2d 797 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
“19g; MCL 767A.5. Because of the similarities between a grand jury proceeding and an investigative subpoena hearing, we find that testimony given at an investigative subpoena hearing qualifies as "[t]estimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different…”
People v. Stevens, 610 N.W.2d 881 (Mich. 2000).
“NOTES [1] MCL 767A.5(5); MSA 28.1023(A)(5)(5) requires the prosecuting attorney to inform the person being interviewed of the person's constitutional rights regarding self-incrimination before asking questions under an investigative subpoena.”
People of Michigan v. William Gale Melendez (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“2, “the judge determines there is reasonable cause to believe a felony has been committed,” and “the judge determines there is reasonable cause to believe that .”
People of Michigan v. William Gale Melendez (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“2, “the judge determines there is reasonable cause to believe a felony has been committed,” and “the judge determines there is reasonable cause to believe that .”
People of Michigan v. Malcolm Xavier Jeffries (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“And MCL 767A.5(3) states that the person being examined “may have legal counsel present in the room in which the inquiry is held” and that the person “may discuss fully with his or her legal counsel any matter relating to the person’s part in the inquiry without being subject to…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 767A.5(6) — 5 cases
Truel v. City of Dearborn, 804 N.W.2d 744 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
“” MCL 767A.5(1). The prosecutor may; with court approval, grant immunity to a person “whom the prosecuting attorney intends to require to give testimony concerning” the matter under investigation.”
People v. Pruitt, 580 N.W.2d 462 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
“” MCL 767A.5(1); MSA 28.1023A(5)(1). A person who refuses to answer any question or to produce any record, document, or physical evidence may be ordered to do so by the judge who authorized the issuance of the subpoena, MCL 767A.”
People v. Gadomski, 731 N.W.2d 466 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
“MCL 767A.5(6). 3 That the Legislature expressly identified and afforded certain rights to defendant strongly indicates that it did not intend to afford defendant an additional right to challenge the subpoena.”
People of Michigan v. Ramon Catrell Logan II (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
“In its interpretation of MCL 767A.5, the Court in Truel did not hold that the defendants were not entitled to the transcripts of the four officers because the officers would not be called to testify in plaintiff’s WPA action against defendants.”
People of Michigan v. James Anthony Reeves (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
“INVESTIGATIVE SUBPOENA TRANSCRIPTS Defendant next contends in his Standard 4 brief that the prosecutor withheld the transcript of Thornton’s statements pursuant to an investigative subpoena and that this is in violation of MCL 767A.5, that the trial judge violated the same…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 767A.5(7) — 1 case
People v. Pruitt, 580 N.W.2d 462 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
“” MCL 767A.5(1); MSA 28.1023A(5)(1). A person who refuses to answer any question or to produce any record, document, or physical evidence may be ordered to do so by the judge who authorized the issuance of the subpoena, MCL 767A.”
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.