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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 768.5 (2026)

Defendants jointly indicted; separation of trials.

✓ 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


768.5 Defendants jointly indicted; separation of trials.

Sec. 5.

    When 2 or more defendants shall be jointly indicted for any criminal offense, they shall be tried separately or jointly, in the discretion of the court.

History: 1927, Act 175, Eff. Sept. 5, 1927 ;-- CL 1929, 17298 ;-- CL 1948, 768.5

FormerLaw Notes:

    See section 14 of Ch. 165 of R.S. 1846, being CL 1857, § 6081; CL 1871, § 7960; How., § 9573; CL 1897, § 11956; and CL 1915, § 15829.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 76 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1950–2024 · leading case: People v. Hana, 524 N.W.2d 682 (Mich. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Hana, 524 N.W.2d 682 (Mich. 1994). · cites it 12× “We hold, in line with MCL 768.5; MSA 28.1028 and MCR 6.121(D), that the decision to sever or join defendants lies within the discretion of the trial court.”
People v. Hurst, 238 N.W.2d 6 (Mich. 1976). · cites it 4× “[4] MCLA 768.5; MSA 28.1028. [5] Much of the early case law, preceding Bruton v United States, 391 US 123 ; 88 S Ct 1620 ; 20 L Ed 2d 476 (1968), dealt with the question whether a joint trial should be permitted where a codefendant has given a confession which the prosecutor…”
People v. Holly, 341 N.W.2d 823 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 4× “Defendants appeal as of right. Defendants first argue that the trial court incorrectly denied their motion for separate trials.”
People v. Wakeford, 341 N.W.2d 68 (Mich. 1983). · cites it 2× “MCL 768.5; MSA 28.1028. We do not find even a theoretical inconsistency between the defenses of the defendant and his codefendant, much less an actual inconsistency sufficient to create an affirmative showing of prejudice.”
People v. Carroll, 240 N.W.2d 722 (Mich. 1976). · cites it 2× “Statutory authority for the exercise of the court's discretion (MCLA 768.5; MSA 28.1028) and case law establishing a strong policy in favor of joint trials are acknowledged by defendants.”
People v. Markham, 173 N.W.2d 307 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969). · cites it 4× “Defendant was jointly tried under MCLA § 768.5 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1028) with Robert Rolston, who was also convicted and sentenced to serve 30 to 40 years.”
People v. Gunter, 257 N.W.2d 133 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 2× “Generally, defendants do not have a right to separate trials in this state. People v Hurst, 396 Mich 1, 6 ; 238 NW2d 6 (1976).”
People v. Manning, 450 N.W.2d 534 (Mich. 1990). · cites it 2× “Luna sat at the defense table for four days, and the fifth day he sat before the jury and told them that in presenting *30 his defense, "I was lying ... I'm guilty — we're guilty.”
People v. Smith, 252 N.W.2d 488 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 2× “Where distinct allegations are raised, we will address them separately. Defendants Gilmore, Smith and Holloway all contend that reversible error occurred when the *468 trial court denied their pretrial motions for severance.”
People v. Miller, 276 N.W.2d 558 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 2× “MCL 768.5; MSA 28.1028. People v Hurst, 396 Mich 1 ; 238 NW2d 6 (1976).”
People v. Carter, 184 N.W.2d 373 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971). · cites it 6× “MCLA § 768.5 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1028).”
People v. Schram, 142 N.W.2d 662 (Mich. 1966). · cites it 2× “" CL 1948, § 768.5 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1028). Defendant argues that because the cited statute contemplates only a situation where two or more defendants are jointly indicted, then joinder or consolidation where two or more defendants are separately indicted is forbidden, in…”
Show all 76 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.