THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Act 175 of 1927
775.15 Accused unable to procure witness; subpoena, fee.
Sec. 15.
If any person accused of any crime or misdemeanor, and about to be tried therefor in any court of record in this state, shall make it appear to the satisfaction of the judge presiding over the court wherein such trial is to be had, by his own oath, or otherwise, that there is a material witness in his favor within the jurisdiction of the court, without whose testimony he cannot safely proceed to a trial, giving the name and place of residence of such witness, and that such accused person is poor and has not and cannot obtain the means to procure the attendance of such witness at the place of trial, the judge in his discretion may, at a time when the prosecuting officer of the county is present, make an order that a subpoena be issued from such court for such witness in his favor, and that it be served by the proper officer of the court. And it shall be the duty of such officer to serve such subpoena, and of the witness or witnesses named therein to attend the trial, and the officer serving such subpoena shall be paid therefor, and the witness therein named shall be paid for attending such trial, in the same manner as if such witness or witnesses had been subpoenaed in behalf of the people.
History: 1927, Act 175, Eff. Sept. 5, 1927 ;-- CL 1929, 17485 ;-- CL 1948, 775.15
FormerLaw Notes:
See Act 226 of 1849, being CL 1857, § 5693; CL 1871, § 7492; How., § 9067; CL 1897, § 12017; CL 1915, § 15911; and Act 24 of 1877 .
Notes of Decisions
People of Michigan v. Johnny Ray Kennedy, 917 N.W.2d 355 (Mich. 2018).
· cites it 23× “The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that defendant failed to show that expert testimony would benefit his defense, as required by MCL 775.15 and People v. Tanner . 1 We take this opportunity to clarify that…”
People v. Loyer, 425 N.W.2d 714 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 26× “Defendant appeals as of right and we affirm, although in doing so we declare unconstitutional a statute in the Code of Criminal Procedure concerning the payment of subpoena fees by the government on behalf of indigent defendants, MCL 775.15; MSA 28.1252. Defendant's conviction…”
in Re Yarbrough Minors, 885 N.W.2d 878 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 8× “19b(3)(b)(i), (b)(ii), (g), (j), and (k)(iii), (k)(iv), and (k)(v), and found that termination of parental rights served the children’s best interests.”
People v. Agar, 887 N.W.2d 662 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 8× “” People v Carnicom, 272 Mich App 614, 616 ; 727 NW2d 399 (2006), citing MCL 775.15. An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court selects an outcome that is not within the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.”
People v. Carnicom, 727 N.W.2d 399 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 4× “Defendant argues on appeal that he was denied due process when the trial court denied his motion to authorize funds to conduct an independent test of his blood sample. Defendant claims that he was denied the opportunity to present a defense and asserts that the error requires a…”
People v. Tanner, 660 N.W.2d 746 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 6× “MCL 775.15; MSA 28.1252. In other words, a defendant must show a nexus between the facts of the case and the need for an expert.”
Terry Ceasor v. John Ocwieja, 655 F. App'x 263 (6th Cir. 2016).
· cites it 3× “Finally, appellate counsel asserted that even if Ceasor could not afford to retain an expert, trial counsel should have requested public funding to pay for consultation with an expert.”
People v. Bergman, 879 N.W.2d 278 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “MCL 775.15 authorizes payment for an expert witness, provided that an indigent defendant is able to show “that there is a material witness in his favor within the jurisdiction of the court, without whose testimony he cannot safely proceed to trial.”
People v. McDonald, 844 N.W.2d 168 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “” People v Carnicom, 272 Mich App 614, 616 ; 727 NW2d 399 (2006), citing MCL 775.15. A court abuses its discretion when a decision by the court results in an outcome that falls outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.”
People v. Stewart, 256 N.W.2d 31 (Mich. 1977).
· cites it 2× “MCLA 775.15; MSA 28.1252. The record discloses that the defense never asked that the codefendant be produced or requested a showing of due diligence be made by the prosecution.”
People v. Sierb, 581 N.W.2d 219 (Mich. 1998).
· cites it 2× “§ 775.15; M.S.A. § 28.1252. [9] See People v.”
People v. Herndon, 633 N.W.2d 376 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001).
“60 MCL 775.15. 61 See, generally, Bailey, supra at 672 (discussing need for evidence of intervening cause to support instruction concerning the doctrine).”
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.