Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 768.4 (2026)

Proof of felony at trial for misdemeanor; effect.

✓ 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


768.4 Proof of felony at trial for misdemeanor; effect.

Sec. 4.

    If, upon the trial of any person for a misdemeanor, the facts given in evidence amount in law to a felony, he shall not by reason thereof, be entitled to an acquittal of such misdemeanor, and no person tried for such misdemeanor shall be liable to be afterwards prosecuted for felony on the same facts, unless the court before which the trial shall be had, shall discharge the jury from giving any verdict upon such trial, and shall direct such person to be indicted for felony.

History: 1927, Act 175, Eff. Sept. 5, 1927 ;-- CL 1929, 17297 ;-- CL 1948, 768.4

FormerLaw Notes:

    See section 4 of Act 77 of 1855, being CL 1857, § 6050; CL 1871, § 7919; How., § 9530; CL 1897, § 11915; and CL 1915, § 15742.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1963–1997 · leading case: People v. Denio, 564 N.W.2d 13 (Mich. 1997).
People v. Denio, 564 N.W.2d 13 (Mich. 1997). · cites it 2× “MCL 768.4; MSA 28.1027 (abolishing the merger doctrine); People v.”
People v. Wilder, 308 N.W.2d 112 (Mich. 1981). · cites it 2× “See MCL 768.4; MSA 28.1027. See also People v Causley, 299 Mich 340, 347 ; 300 NW 111 (1941).”
People v. Carter, 330 N.W.2d 314 (Mich. 1982). “MCL 768.4; MSA 28.1027; People v Causley, 299 Mich 340 ; 300 NW 111 (1941).”
People v. Teague, 225 N.W.2d 761 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 2× “Defendant lastly argues that his conviction must be reversed because it is contrary to MCLA 768.4; MSA 28.1027 and violates his rights under the double jeopardy provisions of the state and federal constitutions as enunciated in People v White, 390 *350 Mich 245; 212 NW2d 222…”
People v. Beasley, 121 N.W.2d 457 (Mich. 1963). · cites it 4× “Because of the gravity of the issue presented, we asked for an additional brief from the attorney general on the applicability and effect of CL 1948, § 768.4 (Stat Ann 1954 Bev § 28.1027). This matter was first enacted as PA 1855, No 77, § 4.”
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.