Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 768 / Act 175 of 1927
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 768.29 (2026)

Judge's duty at trial; effect of failure to instruct.

✓ 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


768.29 Judge's duty at trial; effect of failure to instruct.

Sec. 29.

    It shall be the duty of the judge to control all proceedings during the trial, and to limit the introduction of evidence and the argument of counsel to relevant and material matters, with a view to the expeditious and effective ascertainment of the truth regarding the matters involved. The court shall instruct the jury as to the law applicable to the case and in his charge make such comment on the evidence, the testimony and character of any witnesses, as in his opinion the interest of justice may require. The failure of the court to instruct on any point of law shall not be ground for setting aside the verdict of the jury unless such instruction is requested by the accused.

History: 1927, Act 175, Eff. Sept. 5, 1927 ;-- CL 1929, 17322 ;-- CL 1948, 768.29

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 302 cases (36 in the last 5 years), 1950–2026 · leading case: People v. Carines, 597 N.W.2d 130 (Mich. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Carines, 597 N.W.2d 130 (Mich. 1999). · cites it 16× “§ 768.29; M.S.A. § 28.1052 provides that "[t]he failure of the court to instruct on any point of law shall not be ground for setting aside the verdict of the jury unless such instruction is requested by the accused.”
People v. Young, 693 N.W.2d 801 (Mich. 2005). · cites it 30× “Moreover, the McCoy rule is inconsistent with MCL 768.29, which provides that the failure to instruct on a point of law is not a ground for setting aside a verdict unless the instruction is requested by the accused, and MCR 2.”
People v. Cornell, 646 N.W.2d 127 (Mich. 2002). · cites it 10× “MCL 768.29 requires the court to "instruct the jury as to the law applicable to the case" and indicates that "[t]he failure of the court to instruct the jury on any point of law shall not be ground for setting aside the verdict of the jury unless such instruction is requested by…”
People v. Johnson, 889 N.W.2d 513 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 3× “” Rose, 289 Mich App at 509 , citing MRE 611(a); see also MCL 768.29. The authority and discretion afforded to trial courts to control the course of trial is, in fact, very broad.”
People v. Gonzalez, 664 N.W.2d 159 (Mich. 2003). · cites it 4× “MCL 768.29 provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he failure of the court to instruct on any point of law shall not be ground for setting aside the verdict of the jury unless such instruction is requested by the accused.”
People v. Nyx, 734 N.W.2d 548 (Mich. 2007). · cites it 4× “As we explained in Cornell : "To permit otherwise would be inconsistent with the truth-seeking function of a trial, as expressed in MCL 768.29." Cornell, supra at 357-358 , 646 N.”
People v. Armstrong, 851 N.W.2d 856 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “People v Riddle, 467 Mich 116, 124 ; 649 NW2d 30 (2002); MCL 768.29. People v Reed, 393 Mich 342, 349-350 ; 224 NW2d 867 (1975) (citations omitted).”
People v. Jones, 860 N.W.2d 112 (Mich. 2014). · cites it 3× “626(5) presents one such law applicable to the charge of reckless driving causing death.”
People v. Anstey, 719 N.W.2d 579 (Mich. 2006). · cites it 2× “[MCL 768.29.] Thus, the judiciary has the authority and obligation under both court rule and statute to instruct the jury on the applicable law and the discretionary power to comment on the evidence as justice requires.”
People v. Atkins, 243 N.W.2d 292 (Mich. 1976). · cites it 4× “Under the circumstances, MCLA 768.29; MSA 28.1052, and GCR 1963, 516.”
People v. Schaefer, 703 N.W.2d 774 (Mich. 2005). · cites it 2× “MCL 768.29. While reading the applicable statute to the jury may well be instructing the jury as to the law applicable to the case in most circumstances, it was not here because the statute contained a term of art jurors are not presumed to understand, i.”
People v. Ullah, 550 N.W.2d 568 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 3× “The trial court has a duty to limit the introduction of evidence and the arguments of counsel to relevant and material matters, MCL 768.29; MSA 28.1052, and to assure that all parties that come before it receive a fair trial.”
Show all 302 citing 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.