THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Act 175 of 1927
768.12 Peremptory challenge; offense not punishable by death or life imprisonment; number.
Sec. 12.
(1) A person who is put on trial for an offense that is not punishable by death or life imprisonment shall be allowed to challenge peremptorily 5 of the persons drawn to serve as jurors. In a case involving 2 or more defendants who are being jointly tried for an offense that is not punishable by death or life imprisonment, each of the defendants shall be allowed to challenge peremptorily 5 persons returned as jurors. The prosecuting officers on behalf of the people shall be allowed to challenge 5 jurors peremptorily if a defendant is being tried alone or, if defendants are tried jointly, shall be allowed the total number of peremptory challenges to which all the defendants are entitled.
(2) On motion and a showing of good cause, the court may grant 1 or more of the parties an increased number of peremptory challenges. The number of additional peremptory challenges the court grants may cause the various parties to have unequal numbers of peremptory challenges.
History: 1927, Act 175, Eff. Sept. 5, 1927 ;-- CL 1929, 17305 ;-- CL 1948, 768.12 ;-- Am. 2006, Act 655, Imd. Eff. Jan. 9, 2007
FormerLaw Notes:
See section 58 of Ch. 103 of R.S. 1846, being CL 1857, § 4400; CL 1871, § 6027; How., § 7607; CL 1897, § 10238; CL 1915, § 14594; Act 147 of 1883; Sections 3 and 4 of Ch. 165 of R.S. 1846, being CL 1857, §§ 6070 and 6071; CL 1871, §§ 7949 and 7950; How., §§ 9561 and 9562; CL 1897, §§ 11944 and 11945; and CL 1915, §§ 15817 and 15818.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
14
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 1969–2026 · leading case:
People v. Harrell, 247 N.W.2d 829 (Mich. 1976).
People v. Harrell, 247 N.W.2d 829 (Mich. 1976).
· cites it 2× “5; MCLA 768.12; MSA 28.1035. However, the defense counsel utilized only four of his peremptory challenges and expressed his satisfaction with the panel at the close of the voir dire.”
People v. Paasche, 525 N.W.2d 914 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994).
“A Both MCL 768.12; MSA 28.1035 and MCR 6.412(E)(1) provide that each defendant tried for an offense not punishable by death or life imprisonment is entitled to five peremptory challenges.”
People v. Daoust, 577 N.W.2d 179 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
“§ 768.12; M.S.A. § 28.1035; MCR 6.412(E)(1).”
People v. Juarez, 404 N.W.2d 222 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987).
“However, under MCL 768.12; MSA 28.1035, a *72 defendant is granted five peremptory challenges in a case not punishable by death or life imprisonment.”
People v. Aldridge, 209 N.W.2d 796 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973).
· cites it 2× “[13] See MCLA 768.12; MSA 28.1035 and MCLA 768.13; MSA 28.”
People v. Bloom, 166 N.W.2d 691 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969).
“r an offense which is not punishable by death or life imprisonment, shall be allowed to challenge peremptorily 5 of the persons drawn to serve as jurors and no more; * * * In cases involving 2 or more defendants who are being jointly tried for such an offense, each of said…”
People of Michigan v. Robert Yarbrough Jr (Mich. 2023).
· cites it 5× “In an opinion by Justice BERNSTEIN, joined by Justices CAVANAGH, WELCH, and BOLDEN, the Supreme Court held: MCL 768.12 and MCL 768.13 mandate that a defendant be permitted to peremptorily challenge prospective jurors, and MCR 2.”
People of Michigan v. Jacques Jean Kabongo (Mich. 2021).
· cites it 4× “” 84 “The prosecuting officers on behalf of the people shall be allowed to challenge 5 jurors peremptorily if a defendant is being tried alone .”
People of Michigan v. Jacques Jean Kabongo (Mich. 2021).
· cites it 4× “” 84 “The prosecuting officers on behalf of the people shall be allowed to challenge 5 jurors peremptorily if a defendant is being tried alone .”
People of Michigan v. Kim Anderson (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
“The 25-year minimum, however, is a sentence applied to a fourth- habitual offender, not a separate sentencing scheme.”
People of Michigan v. Michael Vern McNair (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
“The number of peremptory challenges is set by statute and is based on the possible punishment for the charged offenses. A defendant is entitled to 12 peremptory juror challenges when being tried for an offense punishable by life imprisonment, MCL 768.”
People of Michigan v. Jack William Lapinskas (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
“See MCL 768.12(1); MCR 3 Because we conclude that defendant was not denied due process of law, we decline to address defendant’s argument that the denial of due process in this case was structural and not subject to review for harmless error.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 768.12(1) — 5 cases
People of Michigan v. Michael Vern McNair (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
“The number of peremptory challenges is set by statute and is based on the possible punishment for the charged offenses. A defendant is entitled to 12 peremptory juror challenges when being tried for an offense punishable by life imprisonment, MCL 768.”
People of Michigan v. Jack William Lapinskas (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
“See MCL 768.12(1); MCR 3 Because we conclude that defendant was not denied due process of law, we decline to address defendant’s argument that the denial of due process in this case was structural and not subject to review for harmless error.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 768.12(1)(a) — 1 case
People of Michigan v. Kim Anderson (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
“The 25-year minimum, however, is a sentence applied to a fourth- habitual offender, not a separate sentencing scheme.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 768.12(2) — 2 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.