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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 768.29a (2026)

Defense of insanity in criminal action tried before jury; instructions.

✓ 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


768.29a Defense of insanity in criminal action tried before jury; instructions.

Sec. 29a.

    (1)  If the defendant asserts a defense of insanity in a criminal action which is tried before a jury, the judge shall, before testimony is presented on that issue, instruct the jury on the law as contained in sections 400a and 500(g) of Act No. 258 of the Public Acts of 1974 and in section 21a of chapter 8 of this act.

    (2) At the conclusion of the trial, where warranted by the evidence, the charge to the jury shall contain instructions that it shall consider separately the issues of the presence or absence of mental illness and the presence or absence of legal insanity and shall also contain instructions as to the verdicts of guilty, guilty but mentally ill, not guilty by reason of insanity, and not guilty with regard to the offense or offenses charged and, as required by law, any lesser included offenses.

History: Add. 1975, Act 180, Eff. Aug. 6, 1975

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · leading case: People v. Grant, 520 N.W.2d 123 (Mich. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Grant, 520 N.W.2d 123 (Mich. 1994). · cites it 20× “The issue in this case involves the question whether a trial court's failure to give a preliminary instruction before an offer of testimony on insanity, as required under MCL 768.29a(1); MSA 28.1052(1)(1), requires automatic reversal.”
People v. Stephan, 616 N.W.2d 188 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 10× “MCL 768.29a; MSA 28.1052(1). Together, these statutes establish a scheme that enables the court to account for the degree of a defendant's mental impairment in meting out justice.”
People v. Drossart, 297 N.W.2d 863 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “MCL 768.29a; MSA 28.1052(1). Once instructed on the issue, however, the jury or trier of fact is required to decide the ultimate issue of the defendant’s sanity at the time of the offense.”
People v. Lloyd, 590 N.W.2d 738 (Mich. 1999). · cites it 4× “§ 768.29a; MSA 28.1052(1), give the appropriate jury instructions prior to the experts' testimony and again at the conclusion of trial, the jury may well have returned a verdict of guilty but mentally ill.”
People v. Ritsema, 307 N.W.2d 380 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 3× “” MCL 768.29a(2); MSA 28.1052(1X2). In People v Mikulin, 84 Mich App 705 ; 270 NW2d 500 (1978), the Court reversed the defendant’s conviction due to the trial court’s failure to instruct on insanity before taking expert testimony.”
People v. Ramsey, 375 N.W.2d 297 (Mich. 1985). · cites it 2× “[14] MCL 768.29a(2); MSA 28.1052(1)(2). [15] Although mental retardation — as well as mental illness — may contribute to legal insanity, there is no verdict of "guilty but mentally retarded.”
People v. Shahideh, 758 N.W.2d 536 (Mich. 2008). · cites it 3× “21 a, [9] (5) enacted a statute requiring that the jury be instructed regarding the law before trial starts whenever an insanity defense is presented, MCL 768.29a(1), [10] and (6) required that a defendant who wishes to pursue an insanity defense serve written notice on the…”
People v. Caulley, 494 N.W.2d 853 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “10 and MCL 768.29a(l); MSA 28.1052(1) (l). 2 Defense counsel objected to this instruction, *186 reasoning that it was intended to address recreational drug use and, in this case, defendant was prescribed Halcion as a treatment.”
People v. McLeod, 288 N.W.2d 909 (Mich. 1980). · cites it 2× “MCL 768.29a(2); MSA 28.1052(1)(2) and MCL 768.”
People v. Anderson, 421 N.W.2d 200 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “Czertko stated that a diminished capacity defense applies only to specific intent crimes. Because the jury convicted defendant of second-degree murder, a general intent crime, defendant was not prejudiced by Dr.”
People v. Reed, 556 N.W.2d 858 (Mich. 1996). · cites it 2× “§ 768.29a(1); M.S.A. § 28.1052(1)(1). We held that this failure to instruct was not error requiring automatic reversal.”
People v. Girard, 293 N.W.2d 639 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 3× “MCL 768.29a(1); MSA 28.1052(1)(1), People v Mikulin, 84 Mich App 705 ; 270 NW2d 500 (1978).”
Show all 29 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 768.29a(1) — 10 cases
People v. Grant, 520 N.W.2d 123 (Mich. 1994). “The issue in this case involves the question whether a trial court's failure to give a preliminary instruction before an offer of testimony on insanity, as required under MCL 768.29a(1); MSA 28.1052(1)(1), requires automatic reversal.”
People v. Girard, 293 N.W.2d 639 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980). “MCL 768.29a(1); MSA 28.1052(1)(1), People v Mikulin, 84 Mich App 705 ; 270 NW2d 500 (1978).”
People v. Reed, 556 N.W.2d 858 (Mich. 1996). “§ 768.29a(1); M.S.A. § 28.1052(1)(1). We held that this failure to instruct was not error requiring automatic reversal.”
People v. Shahideh, 758 N.W.2d 536 (Mich. 2008). “21 a, [9] (5) enacted a statute requiring that the jury be instructed regarding the law before trial starts whenever an insanity defense is presented, MCL 768.29a(1), [10] and (6) required that a defendant who wishes to pursue an insanity defense serve written notice on the…”
People v. Mikulin, 270 N.W.2d 500 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 768.29a(2) — 10 cases
People v. Ritsema, 307 N.W.2d 380 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). “” MCL 768.29a(2); MSA 28.1052(1X2). In People v Mikulin, 84 Mich App 705 ; 270 NW2d 500 (1978), the Court reversed the defendant’s conviction due to the trial court’s failure to instruct on insanity before taking expert testimony.”
People v. Ramsey, 375 N.W.2d 297 (Mich. 1985). “[14] MCL 768.29a(2); MSA 28.1052(1)(2). [15] Although mental retardation — as well as mental illness — may contribute to legal insanity, there is no verdict of "guilty but mentally retarded.”
People v. McLeod, 288 N.W.2d 909 (Mich. 1980). “MCL 768.29a(2); MSA 28.1052(1)(2) and MCL 768.”
People v. Shahideh, 758 N.W.2d 536 (Mich. 2008). “21 a, [9] (5) enacted a statute requiring that the jury be instructed regarding the law before trial starts whenever an insanity defense is presented, MCL 768.29a(1), [10] and (6) required that a defendant who wishes to pursue an insanity defense serve written notice on the…”
People v. Parker, 349 N.W.2d 514 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 768.29a(l) — 9 cases
People v. Caulley, 494 N.W.2d 853 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992). “10 and MCL 768.29a(l); MSA 28.1052(1) (l). 2 Defense counsel objected to this instruction, *186 reasoning that it was intended to address recreational drug use and, in this case, defendant was prescribed Halcion as a treatment.”
People v. Anderson, 421 N.W.2d 200 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988). “Czertko stated that a diminished capacity defense applies only to specific intent crimes. Because the jury convicted defendant of second-degree murder, a general intent crime, defendant was not prejudiced by Dr.”
People v. Drossart, 297 N.W.2d 863 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980). “MCL 768.29a; MSA 28.1052(1). Once instructed on the issue, however, the jury or trier of fact is required to decide the ultimate issue of the defendant’s sanity at the time of the offense.”
People v. Reed, 556 N.W.2d 858 (Mich. 1996). “§ 768.29a(1); M.S.A. § 28.1052(1)(1). We held that this failure to instruct was not error requiring automatic reversal.”
People v. Mangiapane, 271 N.W.2d 240 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978).
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.