WILLIAM VAN REGENMORTER CRIME VICTIM'S RIGHTS ACT
Act 87 of 1985
780.765 Oral impact statement at sentencing; physical presence of defendant; remote option; 2018 PA 153 may be cited as "Rebekah Bletsch law".
Sec. 15.
(1) The victim has the right to appear and make an oral impact statement at the sentencing of the defendant. If the victim is physically or emotionally unable to make the oral impact statement, the victim may designate any other person 18 years of age or older who is neither the defendant nor incarcerated to make the statement on the victim's behalf. The other person need not be an attorney. The victim may elect to remotely provide the oral impact statement under this section.
(2) Unless the court has determined, in its discretion, that the defendant is behaving in a disruptive manner or presents a threat to the safety of any individuals present in the courtroom, the defendant must be physically present in the courtroom at the time a victim makes an oral impact statement under subsection (1). In making its determination under this subsection, the court may consider any relevant statement provided by the victim regarding the defendant being physically present during that victim's oral impact statement. This subsection applies to cases in which the sentencing of the defendant occurs after May 22, 2018.
(3) 2018 PA 153, which amended this section and sections 43 and 75, may be cited as the "Rebekah Bletsch law".
History: 1985, Act 87, Eff. Oct. 9, 1985 ;-- Am. 1988, Act 21, Eff. June 1, 1988 ;-- Am. 1993, Act 341, Eff. May 1, 1994 ;-- Am. 2000, Act 503, Eff. June 1, 2001 ;-- Am. 2018, Act 153, Imd. Eff. May 23, 2018 ;-- Am. 2023, Act 178, Eff. Feb. 13, 2024
Notes of Decisions
People of Michigan v. William Lawrence Rucker, 919 N.W.2d 802 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “Each victim shall be afforded the right under section 15 of the William Van Regenmorter crime victim's rights act, 1985 PA 87 , MCL 780.765, to appear before the court and make an oral impact statement at any resentencing of the defendant under this subdivision.”
People v. Cobbs, 505 N.W.2d 208 (Mich. 1993).
· cites it 2× “425(D)(2)(c); MCL 780.765; MSA 28.1287(765). [10] MCL 780.”
Kenneth C. Smith v. Jimmy Stegall, Warden, 385 F.3d 993 (6th Cir. 2004).
· cites it 2× “See Mich. Comp. Laws § 780.765 . The prosecutor did not volunteer to speak on behalf on the victim’s family, but was simply responding to a question by the trial court.”
People v. Pfeiffer, 523 N.W.2d 640 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 3× “The question is whether the sentencing court erred in resentencing defendant, who had begun serving his original ten- to twenty-year sentence, in response to the prosecutor’s motion for resentencing on the ground that the victim’s family was unable to address the court under §…”
People v. Williams, 625 N.W.2d 132 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001).
“1287(764), MCL 780.765; MSA 28.1287(765). However, nowhere in the laws of this state have crime victims been given authority to determine whether the code has been violated or whether the prosecution of a crime should go forward or be dismissed.”
People v. Davis, 834 N.W.2d 897 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).
“764; MCL 780.765; Morales v Parole Bd, 260 Mich App 29, 45-46 ; 676 NW2d 221 (2003); People v Williams, 244 Mich App 249, 253-254 ; 625 NW2d 132 (2001); People v Ratkov (After Remand),”
People v. Steele, 434 N.W.2d 175 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).
“MCL 780.765; MSA 28.1287(765) provides: The victim shall have the right to appear and make an oral impact statement at the sentencing of the defendant.”
People of Michigan v. Odies Arday Murray (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 6× “Defendant contends that Rivera’s mother’s impact statement could not be presented at his resentencing hearing because it fell outside the purview of MCL 780.765, which provides, in relevant part: The victim has the right to appear and make an oral impact statement at the…”
People of Michigan v. Eric Dean Wodkowski (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “MCL 780.765 provides that a victim of a crime “has the right to appear and make an oral impact statement at the sentencing of the defendant.”
People of Michigan v. Benoni Jonathan Enciso (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 2× “The statute includes in its definition of “victim” “[a] parent, guardian, or custodian of the victim, if the victim is less than 18 years of age, who is neither the defendant nor incarcerated, if the parent, guardian, or custodian so chooses.” MCL 780.”
People of Michigan v. Aaron Joe Bryant (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 2× “MCL 780.765. “Victim” is generally defined as “[a]n individual who suffers direct or threatened physical, financial, or emotional harm as a result of the commission of a crime.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 780.765(1) — 5 cases
People of Michigan v. Odies Arday Murray (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
“Defendant contends that Rivera’s mother’s impact statement could not be presented at his resentencing hearing because it fell outside the purview of MCL 780.765, which provides, in relevant part: The victim has the right to appear and make an oral impact statement at the…”
People of Michigan v. Benoni Jonathan Enciso (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
“The statute includes in its definition of “victim” “[a] parent, guardian, or custodian of the victim, if the victim is less than 18 years of age, who is neither the defendant nor incarcerated, if the parent, guardian, or custodian so chooses.” MCL 780.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 780.765(2) — 2 cases
People of Michigan v. Benoni Jonathan Enciso (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
“The statute includes in its definition of “victim” “[a] parent, guardian, or custodian of the victim, if the victim is less than 18 years of age, who is neither the defendant nor incarcerated, if the parent, guardian, or custodian so chooses.” MCL 780.”
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.