THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Act 175 of 1927
768.21 Failure to file and serve notices or to state names of witnesses with particularity; exclusion of evidence.
Sec. 21.
(1) If the defendant fails to file and serve the written notice prescribed in section 20 or 20a, the court shall exclude evidence offered by the defendant for the purpose of establishing an alibi or the insanity of the defendant. If the notice given by the defendant does not state, as particularly as is known to the defendant or the defendant's attorney, the name of a witness to be called in behalf of the defendant to establish a defense specified in section 20 or 20a, the court shall exclude the testimony of a witness which is offered by the defendant for the purpose of establishing that defense.
(2) If the prosecuting attorney fails to file and serve a notice of rebuttal upon the defendant as provided in section 20 or 20a, the court shall exclude evidence offered by the prosecution in rebuttal to the defendant's evidence relevant to a defense specified in section 20 or 20a. If the notice given by the prosecuting attorney does not state, as particularly as is known to the prosecuting attorney, the name of a witness to be called in rebuttal of the defense of alibi or insanity, the court shall exclude the testimony of a witness which is offered by the prosecuting attorney for the purpose of rebutting that defense.
History: 1927, Act 175, Eff. Sept. 5, 1927 ;-- CL 1929, 17314 ;-- CL 1948, 768.21 ;-- Am. 1974, Act 63, Eff. May 1, 1974 ;-- Am. 1975, Act 180, Eff. Aug. 6, 1975 ;-- Am. 1976, Act 51, Imd. Eff. Mar. 21, 1976
Compiler's Notes:
Section 2 of Act 63 of 1974 provides:
“Section 2. To give judges, prosecutors, and defense counsel a reasonable opportunity to become aware of and familiar with the time periods and sequence prescribed in this amendatory act and the effects of noncompliance, sections 20 and 21 of chapter 8 of Act No. 175 of the Public Acts of 1927, being sections 768.20 and 768.21 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, as amended by this amendatory act shall take effect May 1, 1974, and apply to cases in which the arraignment on an information occurs on or after that date. The other provisions of this amendatory act shall take effect May 1, 1974 and apply to offenses committed on or after that date.”
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
68
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 1967–2025 · leading case:
People v. Merritt, 238 N.W.2d 31 (Mich. 1976).
People v. Merritt, 238 N.W.2d 31 (Mich. 1976).
· cites it 8× “"In the event of the failure of a defendant to file the written notice prescribed in the preceding section, the court may in its discretion exclude evidence offered by such defendant for the purpose of establishing an alibi or the insanity of such defendant as set forth in the…”
People v. Travis, 505 N.W.2d 563 (Mich. 1993).
· cites it 8× “The sanction for failure to file the required notice is set forth in MCL 768.21; MSA 28.1044. [9] Before the enactment of 1974 PA 63 , this section provided that where a defendant failed to comply, "the court may in its discretion exclude evidence offered by such defendant.”
People v. Seals, 776 N.W.2d 314 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).
“If the defendant fails to file and serve the above written notice, the trial court is required to exclude evidence offered by the defendant for the purpose of establishing an alibi.”
In Re Ricks, 421 N.W.2d 667 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 6× “Once more assuming, arguendo, that the insanity defense and the procedures set forth in the *293 Code of Criminal Procedure apply to juvenile proceedings, respondent also contends that the court erred in permitting Dr.”
People v. Shahideh, 758 N.W.2d 536 (Mich. 2008).
· cites it 3× “01 of the Model Penal Code, (2) created the guilty but mentally ill verdict, (3) required the guilty but mentally ill verdict to be an option every time the insanity defense was raised, [8] (4) enacted a statute preventing an individual from claiming insanity because he or she…”
People v. Hence, 312 N.W.2d 191 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 3× “MCL 768.21(2); MSA 28.1044(2) requires that, if the prosecuting attorney fails to file and serve a notice of rebuttal upon the defendant as required by MCL 768.”
People v. Giuchici, 324 N.W.2d 593 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 5× “In doing so, the trial court relied on MCL 768.21; MSA 28.1044, which states: "(1) If the defendant fails to file and serve the written notice prescribed in section 20 or 20a, the court shall exclude evidence offered by the defendant for the purpose of establishing an alibi or…”
People v. Wilson, 282 N.W.2d 2 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979).
· cites it 4× “Defendant had filed a notice of alibi prior to trial, listing Judy Evans and Raymond Pritchett as witnesses.”
People v. Kelly, 465 N.W.2d 569 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990).
“1043 and, therefore, the trial court excluded any evidence offered to support defendant’s alibi under MCL 768.21; MSA 28.1044. Even if defendant’s trial attorneys were ineffective by failing to file a timely notice, we nevertheless decline to reverse defendant’s conviction.”
People v. Pate, 310 N.W.2d 883 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 4× “MCL 768.21; MSA 28.1044. In light of the similarities between the notice of alibi and insanity, it would not be illogical to resolve questions concerning the propriety of inquiring about missing insanity witnesses by reference to how the courts have handled the similar problem…”
People v. Charles Jackson, 249 N.W.2d 132 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976).
· cites it 2× “On appeal defendant contends that such preclusion is, in spite of the language of MCLA 768.21; MSA 28.1044, 1 discretionary and that the trial court’s ruling abused that discretion.”
People v. Wilkins, 459 N.W.2d 57 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 2× “1043(1)(1) 1 states that, if a defendant in a felony case proposes to offer in his defense testimony to establish insanity at the time of the alleged offense, the defendant must file and serve notice upon the court and the prosecuting attorney of his intention to assert the…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 768.21(1) — 20 cases
People v. Shahideh, 758 N.W.2d 536 (Mich. 2008).
“01 of the Model Penal Code, (2) created the guilty but mentally ill verdict, (3) required the guilty but mentally ill verdict to be an option every time the insanity defense was raised, [8] (4) enacted a statute preventing an individual from claiming insanity because he or she…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 768.21(2) — 12 cases
People v. Hence, 312 N.W.2d 191 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981).
“MCL 768.21(2); MSA 28.1044(2) requires that, if the prosecuting attorney fails to file and serve a notice of rebuttal upon the defendant as required by MCL 768.”
People v. Travis, 505 N.W.2d 563 (Mich. 1993).
“The sanction for failure to file the required notice is set forth in MCL 768.21; MSA 28.1044. [9] Before the enactment of 1974 PA 63 , this section provided that where a defendant failed to comply, "the court may in its discretion exclude evidence offered by such defendant.”
People v. Wilson, 282 N.W.2d 2 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979).
“Defendant had filed a notice of alibi prior to trial, listing Judy Evans and Raymond Pritchett as witnesses.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 768.21(a)(1) — 1 case
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.