Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 777 / Act 175 of 1927
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.36 (2026)

Intent to kill or injure another individual.

✓ 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


777.36 Intent to kill or injure another individual.

Sec. 36.

    (1) Offense variable 6 is the offender's intent to kill or injure another individual. Score offense variable 6 by determining which of the following apply and by assigning the number of points attributable to the one that has the highest number of points:

    

    (a) The offender had premeditated intent to kill or the killing was committed while committing or attempting to commit arson, criminal sexual conduct in the first or third degree, child abuse in the first degree, a major controlled substance offense, robbery, breaking and entering of a dwelling, home invasion in the first or second degree, larceny of any kind, extortion, or kidnapping or the killing was the murder of a peace officer or a corrections officer

    50 points

    (b) The offender had unpremeditated intent to kill, the intent to do great bodily harm, or created a very high risk of death or great bodily harm knowing that death or great bodily harm was the probable result

    25 points

    (c) The offender had intent to injure or the killing was committed in an extreme emotional state caused by an adequate provocation and before a reasonable amount of time elapsed for the offender to calm or there was gross negligence amounting to an unreasonable disregard for life

    10 points

    (d) The offender had no intent to kill or injure

    0 points

    (2) All of the following apply to scoring offense variable 6.

    (a) The sentencing judge shall score this variable consistent with a jury verdict unless the judge has information that was not presented to the jury.

    (b) Score 10 points if a killing is intentional within the definition of second degree murder or voluntary manslaughter, but the death occurred in a combative situation or in response to victimization of the offender by the decedent.

    

History: Add. 1998, Act 317, Eff. Dec. 15, 1998

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 128 cases (36 in the last 5 years), 2005–2026 · leading case: People of Michigan v. Dawn Marie Dixon-Bey, 909 N.W.2d 458 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People of Michigan v. Dawn Marie Dixon-Bey, 909 N.W.2d 458 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 10× “Generally, OV 6 (offender’s intent to kill or injure another individual), MCL 777.36, can be scored to reflect an offender’s intent and does not warrant an upward departure.”
People v. Steanhouse, 880 N.W.2d 297 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 8× “The statutory basis of OV 6 is MCL 777.36, which assesses points for “the offender’s intent to kill or injure another individual.”
People v. Lockridge, 870 N.W.2d 502 (Mich. 2015). · cites it 4× “5 MCL 777.36(1)(c). 6 MCL 777.39(1)(c). 7 MCL 777.”
People of Michigan v. Henry Anderson, 912 N.W.2d 607 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “Pursuant to MCL 777.36(1)(b), 25 points should be assessed for OV 6 if "[t]he offender had unpremeditated intent to kill, the intent to do great bodily harm, or created a very high risk of death or great bodily harm knowing that death or great bodily harm was the probable result.”
People v. Bowling, 830 N.W.2d 800 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 4× “STANDARD OF REVIEW Defendant next claims that he is entitled to resentencing because the trial court incorrectly scored offense variables (OVs) 6, MCL 777.36, and 9, MCL 777.39. “The proper interpretation and application of the legislative sentencing guidelines are questions of…”
People v. Hardy; People v. Glenn, 494 Mich. 430 (Mich. 2013). · cites it 2× “33; OV 6, MCL 777.36; OV 9, MCL 777.39; OV 11, MCL 777.”
Koras v. Robinson, 123 F. App'x 207 (6th Cir. 2005). “Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 777.36 (2)(b). Although Koras essentially quarrels with the trial judge’s application of state law, he attempts to give his argument a constitutional dimension by claiming the judge violated his due process right to be sentenced according to accurate…”
People of Michigan v. Hazel Janae Cooper (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 14× “Score offense variable 6 by determining which of the following apply and by assigning the number of points attributable to the one that has the highest number of points: (a) The offender had premeditated intent to kill or the killing was committed while committing or attempting…”
People of Michigan v. Dawn Marie Dixon-Bey, 910 N.W.2d 303 (Mich. 2018). “2d 327 (2017) ; and (2) whether, when a jury convicted the defendant of second-degree murder, the trial court abused its discretion in applying the principle of proportionality if it either (a) sentenced the defendant according to an independent finding that she committed…”
Norris v. Burt (E.D. Mich. 2020). · cites it 10× “" Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.36 (1). Fifty points is the proper score if "[t]he offender had premeditated intent to kill.”
People of Michigan v. Tunc Uraz (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 9× “]” MCL 777.36. MCL 777.36(1)(a) provides for a score of 50 points if [t]he offender had premeditated intent to kill or the killing was committed while committing or attempting to commit arson, criminal sexual conduct in the first or -18- third degree, child abuse in the first…”
People of Michigan v. Justin Amir House (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 8× “Ten points are proper if “[t]he offender had intent to injure or the killing was committed in an extreme emotional state caused by an adequate provocation and before a reasonable amount of time elapsed for the offender to calm or there was gross negligence amounting to an…”
Show all 128 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.36(1) — 36 cases
People v. Steanhouse, 880 N.W.2d 297 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “The statutory basis of OV 6 is MCL 777.36, which assesses points for “the offender’s intent to kill or injure another individual.”
People of Michigan v. Michael Daniel Jeffries (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
People of Michigan v. Kristi Marie Gesch (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
People of Michigan v. Erik Sadowski (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
People of Michigan v. Darrin Crawford (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.36(1)(a) — 40 cases
People v. Bowling, 830 N.W.2d 800 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “STANDARD OF REVIEW Defendant next claims that he is entitled to resentencing because the trial court incorrectly scored offense variables (OVs) 6, MCL 777.36, and 9, MCL 777.39. “The proper interpretation and application of the legislative sentencing guidelines are questions of…”
People of Michigan v. Clarence Jovan Davison (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
People of Michigan v. Sherman Lamont Wagner (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
People of Michigan v. Derrick Howard-Larkin (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
People of Michigan v. Tunc Uraz (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “]” MCL 777.36. MCL 777.36(1)(a) provides for a score of 50 points if [t]he offender had premeditated intent to kill or the killing was committed while committing or attempting to commit arson, criminal sexual conduct in the first or -18- third degree, child abuse in the first…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.36(1)(b) — 50 cases
People of Michigan v. Henry Anderson, 912 N.W.2d 607 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “Pursuant to MCL 777.36(1)(b), 25 points should be assessed for OV 6 if "[t]he offender had unpremeditated intent to kill, the intent to do great bodily harm, or created a very high risk of death or great bodily harm knowing that death or great bodily harm was the probable result.”
People of Michigan v. Hazel Janae Cooper (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “Score offense variable 6 by determining which of the following apply and by assigning the number of points attributable to the one that has the highest number of points: (a) The offender had premeditated intent to kill or the killing was committed while committing or attempting…”
People of Michigan v. MacKenzie Lynn Quarrels (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
People of Michigan v. Deandre Lee Arnold (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
People of Michigan v. Terrance Jerom Shelby Jr (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.36(1)(c) — 19 cases
People v. Lockridge, 870 N.W.2d 502 (Mich. 2015). “5 MCL 777.36(1)(c). 6 MCL 777.39(1)(c). 7 MCL 777.”
People of Michigan v. Justin Amir House (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). “Ten points are proper if “[t]he offender had intent to injure or the killing was committed in an extreme emotional state caused by an adequate provocation and before a reasonable amount of time elapsed for the offender to calm or there was gross negligence amounting to an…”
People of Michigan v. Valentino Lahron Lee Stewart Jr (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
People of Michigan v. Kelwin Dwayne Edwards (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
People of Michigan v. Sigmund Floyd Rumpf (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.36(1)(d) — 3 cases
People of Michigan v. Alexis Christine Welsh (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
People of Michigan v. Tunc Uraz (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “]” MCL 777.36. MCL 777.36(1)(a) provides for a score of 50 points if [t]he offender had premeditated intent to kill or the killing was committed while committing or attempting to commit arson, criminal sexual conduct in the first or -18- third degree, child abuse in the first…”
People of Michigan v. Andrew Carlos Wright (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.36(2) — 1 case
People of Michigan v. Montrell Devon Wheeler (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.36(2)(a) — 60 cases
People of Michigan v. Dawn Marie Dixon-Bey, 909 N.W.2d 458 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “Generally, OV 6 (offender’s intent to kill or injure another individual), MCL 777.36, can be scored to reflect an offender’s intent and does not warrant an upward departure.”
People of Michigan v. Henry Anderson, 912 N.W.2d 607 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “Pursuant to MCL 777.36(1)(b), 25 points should be assessed for OV 6 if "[t]he offender had unpremeditated intent to kill, the intent to do great bodily harm, or created a very high risk of death or great bodily harm knowing that death or great bodily harm was the probable result.”
People v. Steanhouse, 880 N.W.2d 297 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “The statutory basis of OV 6 is MCL 777.36, which assesses points for “the offender’s intent to kill or injure another individual.”
People of Michigan v. Dawn Marie Dixon-Bey, 910 N.W.2d 303 (Mich. 2018). “2d 327 (2017) ; and (2) whether, when a jury convicted the defendant of second-degree murder, the trial court abused its discretion in applying the principle of proportionality if it either (a) sentenced the defendant according to an independent finding that she committed…”
People v. Dixon-Bey, 931 N.W.2d 302 (Mich. 2019).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.36(2)(b) — 14 cases
People of Michigan v. Hazel Janae Cooper (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “Score offense variable 6 by determining which of the following apply and by assigning the number of points attributable to the one that has the highest number of points: (a) The offender had premeditated intent to kill or the killing was committed while committing or attempting…”
People of Michigan v. Keith Randolph Lewis (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
People of Michigan v. Erik Sadowski (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
People of Michigan v. Tanino Emon Miller (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
People of Michigan v. Jamal Devonta Bennett (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.36(a) — 1 case
People of Michigan v. Kiron Len Curry (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.36(l)(a) — 1 case
People v. Steanhouse, 880 N.W.2d 297 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “The statutory basis of OV 6 is MCL 777.36, which assesses points for “the offender’s intent to kill or injure another individual.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.36(l)(b) — 1 case
People v. Steanhouse, 880 N.W.2d 297 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “The statutory basis of OV 6 is MCL 777.36, which assesses points for “the offender’s intent to kill or injure another individual.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 777.36(l)(c) — 1 case
People v. Lockridge, 870 N.W.2d 502 (Mich. 2015). “5 MCL 777.36(1)(c). 6 MCL 777.39(1)(c). 7 MCL 777.”
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.