Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 772.6 (2026)

Failure to pay recognizance; commitment to county jail; hearing.

✓ 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

772.6 Failure to pay recognizance; commitment to county jail; hearing.

Sec. 6.

If the person so ordered to recognize refuses or neglects to provide that recognizance, the court shall commit the person to the county jail during the period for which security was required, or until the person provides that recognizance. A person shall not be incarcerated for failure to pay the recognizance unless the court conducts a hearing and determines that the person has the resources to pay the recognizance and has not made a good faith effort to do so. In determining whether to incarcerate the person, the court shall also consider the person's employment status, earning ability, and financial resources; the willfulness of the person's failure to pay the recognizance; and any other special circumstances that may have a bearing on the person's ability to pay the recognizance. The court shall state in the warrant the cause of commitment with the sum and the time for which the security was required.

History: 1927, Act 175, Eff. Sept. 5, 1927 ;-- CL 1929, 17393 ;-- CL 1948, 772.6 ;-- Am. 1994, Act 71, Eff. July 1, 1994

FormerLaw Notes:

See section 6 of Ch. 162 of R.S. 1846, being CL 1857, § 5964; CL 1871, § 7830; How., § 9440; CL 1897, § 11805; and CL 1915, § 15632.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case, 1999–1999 · leading case: In Re Gosnell, 594 N.W.2d 90 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In Re Gosnell, 594 N.W.2d 90 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). “Rather, MCL 772.6; MSA 28.1159 states, in pertinent part: If the person so ordered to recognize refuses or neglects to provide that recognizance, the court shall commit the person to the county jail during the period for which security was required, or until the person provides…”

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.