THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Act 175 of 1927
776.21 “Law enforcement officer” and “victim” defined; submitting victim to polygraph examination or lie detector test; giving polygraph examination or lie detector test to defendant upon request.
Sec. 21.
(1) As used in this section:
(a) "Law enforcement officer" means a police officer of a county, city, village, township, or this state; a college or university public safety officer; a prosecuting attorney, assistant prosecuting attorney, or an investigator for the office of prosecuting attorney; or any other person whose duty is to enforce the laws of this state.
(b) "Victim" means a person who is a victim of a crime under sections 520b to 520e and 520g of Act No. 328 of the Public Acts of 1931, being sections 750.520b to 750.520e and 750.520g of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
(2) A law enforcement officer shall not request or order a victim to submit to a polygraph examination or lie detector test. A law enforcement officer shall not inform a victim of the option of taking a polygraph examination or lie detector test unless the victim inquires concerning such a test or as provided by subsection (3).
(3) A law enforcement officer shall inform the victim when the person accused of a crime specified in subsection (1)(b) has voluntarily submitted to a polygraphic examination or lie detector test and the test indicates that the person may not have committed the crime.
(4) Subsections (2) and (3) apply only to a polygraph examination or lie detector test which is requested, ordered, or given in regard to a person being a victim.
(5) A defendant who allegedly has committed a crime under sections 520b to 520e and 520g of Act No. 328 of the Public Acts of 1931, shall be given a polygraph examination or lie detector test if the defendant requests it.
History: Add. 1980, Act 454, Eff. Mar. 31, 1981
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
31
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1985–2022 · leading case:
People v. Phillips, 666 N.W.2d 657 (Mich. 2003).
People v. Phillips, 666 N.W.2d 657 (Mich. 2003).
· cites it 26× “Not only has defendant not asserted these claims, he has not requested a polygraph examination in his application for leave to appeal.”
People v. Wilkens, 705 N.W.2d 728 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “MCL 776.21(5) provides: A defendant who allegedly has committed a crime under sections 520b to 520e and 520g of Act No.”
People v. Phillips, 649 N.W.2d 407 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 4× “Two tests were scheduled before trial; evidently defendant canceled the first test, and the polygraph operator refused to administer the second scheduled test, apparently because defendant did not provide a medical release.”
Davis v. Booker, 594 F. Supp. 2d 802 (E.D. Mich. 2009).
· cites it 2× “Defense counsel failed to vigorously argue that Michigan Compiled Laws Annotated Section 776.21 is unconstitutional, wherein this state statute is inapplicable to this Petitioner being tried for murder, but applicable to the other defendant’s being tried for criminal sexual…”
People v. Manser, 645 N.W.2d 65 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002).
“Defendant was originally denied his right to a polygraph examination in violation of MCL 776.21(5). When defendant raised this issue before trial, the prosecution dismissed the case and subsequently refiled it.”
People v. Sterling, 397 N.W.2d 182 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986).
“MCL 776.21(5); MSA 28.1274(2)(5) provides that "[a] defendant who allegedly has committed a crime under section 520b to 520e and 520g of Act *234 No.”
People v. Rogers, 364 N.W.2d 748 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “MCL 776.21; MSA 28.1274(2) provides as follows: "(1) As used in this section: "(a) 'Law enforcement officer’ means a police officer of a county, city, village, township, or this state; a college or university public safety officer; a prosecuting attorney, assistant prosecuting…”
People v. Smith, 535 N.W.2d 248 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “Moreover, in criminal sexual conduct trials, judges are aware of MCL 776.21(5); MSA 28.1274(2)(5) and that competent defense counsel advise defendants of their statutory right to a polygraph examination and that, though non-prosecution is not a rule etched in granite, relatively…”
in Re Christopher Ross Jr (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 12× “Specifically, he contends that Randazzo was ineffective for: (1) failing to file a witness list, (2) failing to call several witnesses to testify at trial, and (3) failing to obtain a pretrial polygraph under MCL 776.21(5). We disagree. First, respondent is not entitled to…”
in Re Christopher Ross Jr (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 12× “Specifically, he contends that Randazzo was ineffective for: (1) failing to file a witness list, (2) failing to call several witnesses to testify at trial, and (3) failing to obtain a pretrial polygraph under MCL 776.21(5). We disagree. First, respondent is not entitled to…”
People v. Wilkens, 716 N.W.2d 268 (Mich. 2006).
· cites it 2× “There is no timing requirement contained in MCL 776.21. Therefore, this ruling was in error.”
People of Michigan v. Michael Arthur Farmar (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 4× “MCL 776.21(5) provides that “[a] defendant who allegedly has committed” CSC “shall be given a polygraph examination or lie detector test if the defendant requests it.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 776.21(2) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 776.21(5) — 25 cases
People v. Phillips, 666 N.W.2d 657 (Mich. 2003).
“Not only has defendant not asserted these claims, he has not requested a polygraph examination in his application for leave to appeal.”
People v. Wilkens, 705 N.W.2d 728 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005).
“MCL 776.21(5) provides: A defendant who allegedly has committed a crime under sections 520b to 520e and 520g of Act No.”
People v. Phillips, 649 N.W.2d 407 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002).
“Two tests were scheduled before trial; evidently defendant canceled the first test, and the polygraph operator refused to administer the second scheduled test, apparently because defendant did not provide a medical release.”
People v. Manser, 645 N.W.2d 65 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002).
“Defendant was originally denied his right to a polygraph examination in violation of MCL 776.21(5). When defendant raised this issue before trial, the prosecution dismissed the case and subsequently refiled it.”
People v. Sterling, 397 N.W.2d 182 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986).
“MCL 776.21(5); MSA 28.1274(2)(5) provides that "[a] defendant who allegedly has committed a crime under section 520b to 520e and 520g of Act *234 No.”
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.