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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 768.3 (2026)

Person indicted; presence at trial.

✓ 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


768.3 Person indicted; presence at trial.

Sec. 3.

    No person indicted for a felony shall be tried unless personally present during the trial; persons indicted or complained against for misdemeanors may, at their own request, through an attorney, duly authorized for that purpose, by leave of the court, be put on trial in their absence.

History: 1927, Act 175, Eff. Sept. 5, 1927 ;-- CL 1929, 17296 ;-- CL 1948, 768.3

FormerLaw Notes:

    See section 9 of Ch. 165 of R.S. 1846, being CL 1857, § 6076; CL 1871, § 7955; How., § 9568; CL 1897, § 11951; and CL 1915, § 15824.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 61 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1953–2025 · leading case: People v. Mallory, 365 N.W.2d 673 (Mich. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Mallory, 365 N.W.2d 673 (Mich. 1985). · cites it 10× “The view properly helped the jurors to better understand the distances involved and to weigh the evidence admitted at trial, especially the credibility of the eyewitness. We must now decide whether defendants were entitled to be present at the jury view.”
Roberts v. Mecosta Cnty. Gen. Hosp., 642 N.W.2d 663 (Mich. 2002). · cites it 4× “§ 768.3, to be present at trial. See also People v.”
People v. Krueger, 643 N.W.2d 223 (Mich. 2002). · cites it 7× “We conclude that under MCL 768.3 a defendant has a right to be physically present at trial.”
People v. Carroll, 240 N.W.2d 722 (Mich. 1976). · cites it 6× “The majority opinion's statement that "there are no rights held by the defendant which his presence would have afforded him that his counsel cannot exercise in his absence" does not comport with the requirements of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States…”
People v. Buckey, 378 N.W.2d 432 (Mich. 1985). · cites it 2× “, the right to be present at trial, which, the Court noted, is guaranteed by statute, MCL 768.3; *12 MSA 28.1026, and by the United States Constitution, US Const, Am VI.”
People v. Kammeraad, 858 N.W.2d 490 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “Thus, according to defendant, his statutory and constitutional right to be present during his trial was violated, necessitating reversal and remand for a new trial.”
People v. Powell, 303 Mich. App. 271 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “” People v Mallory, 421 Mich 229, 247 ; 365 NW2d 673 (1984); see also MCL 768.3. In People v France, 436 Mich 138, 161 ; 461 NW2d 621 (1990), the Michigan Supreme Court specifically addressed ex parte communications.”
People v. Fredericks, 335 N.W.2d 919 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “In Michigan, the right is guaranteed by statute, MCL 768.3; MSA 28.1026. The right is also grounded in the federal constitution: "US Const, Am VI, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment ( Pointer v Texas, 380 US 400 ; 85 S Ct 1065 ; 13 L Ed 2d 923 [1965]),…”
Commonwealth v. Patterson, 180 A.3d 1217 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018). “" Mich. Comp. Laws § 768.3 . The Supreme Court of Michigan has long held that a criminal defendant has the right to accompany a jury to a view of the crime scene.”
People v. Federico, 381 N.W.2d 819 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985). “The Fredericks Court reviewed defendant’s claim of error and noted that the right of an accused to be present at his trial is a fundamental right which is grounded in the federal constitution, US Const, Am VI, and guaranteed by statute in Michigan, MCL 768.3; MSA 28.1026. The…”
People v. Kerridge, 173 N.W.2d 789 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969). · cites it 2× “MCLA § 768.3 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1026).”
People v. Baskin, 378 N.W.2d 535 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985). “V Defendant’s next argument is that his right to be present at trial was violated as a result of in-chamber conferences held by the trial court without the defendant’s presence. Specifically, defendant points to those conferences concerning the jury instructions to be given and…”
Show all 61 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.