Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 780 / Act 87 of 1985

Mich. Comp. Laws § 780.767

Amount of restitution; order; consideration; order to obtain information; disclosures; resolving dispute as to amount and type of restitution.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

WILLIAM VAN REGENMORTER CRIME VICTIM'S RIGHTS ACT


Act 87 of 1985


780.767 Amount of restitution; order; consideration; order to obtain information; disclosures; resolving dispute as to amount and type of restitution.

Sec. 17.

    (1) In determining the amount of restitution to order under section 16, the court shall consider the amount of the loss sustained by any victim as a result of the offense.

    (2) The court may order the probation officer to obtain information pertaining to the amounts of loss described in subsection (1). The probation officer shall include the information collected in the presentence investigation report or in a separate report, as the court directs.

    (3) The court shall disclose to both the defendant and the prosecuting attorney all portions of the presentence or other report pertaining to the matters described in subsection (1).

    (4) Any dispute as to the proper amount or type of restitution shall be resolved by the court by a preponderance of the evidence. The burden of demonstrating the amount of the loss sustained by a victim as a result of the offense shall be on the prosecuting attorney.

History: 1985, Act 87, Eff. Oct. 9, 1985 ;-- Am. 1996, Act 562, Eff. June 1, 1997

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 104 cases (18 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case: PEOPLE v. McKINLEY
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
PEOPLE v. McKINLEY (2014) mich · cites it 18× “11 MCL 780.767, for example, sets forth the factors for consideration and the burden of proof in setting the amount of restitution.”
People v. Grant (1997) mich · cites it 11× “In imposing restitution as part of a sentence under the act, this statute, like the probation statute, does not expressly state that a sentencing judge is required to hold a separate hearing or make express findings regarding a defendant’s ability to pay restitution at…”
People v. Lueth (2003) michctapp · cites it 3× “At the time at least some of the crimes were committed, the restitution statute, MCL 780.767(1) required the sentencing court to consider “the financial resources and earning ability of the defendant, [and] the financial needs of the defendant and the defendant’s dependents.”
People v. Gubachy (2007) michctapp · cites it 3× “1a discusses a “felony, misdemeanor, or ordinance violation” instead of a “crime” and “cost” instead of “costs.” MCL 769.1a has not been amended since defendant’s sentencing.”
People v. Jackson (2009) mich · cites it 2× “the financial resources and earning ability of the defendant, the financial needs of the defendant and *289 the defendant’s dependents, and such other factors as the court considers appropriate.”
People v. Cross (2008) michctapp · cites it 2× “Under Guajardo , the trial court was permitted to order restitution for lost profits under MCL 780.767; consequently, defendant has not established plain error.”
People v. Lee (2016) michctapp · cites it 2× “Accordingly, the court is required to consider the amount of the victim’s “loss,” MCL 780.767(1), and order the defendant to “make full restitution,” MCL 780.”
People v. White (1995) michctapp · cites it 3× “We affirm with respect to the double jeopardy and constitutionality issues, but we vacate the restitution order and remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine the appropriate amount of restitution, pursuant to MCL 780.767; MSA 28.1287(767) of the Crime Victim’s Rights Act.”
People v. Corbin (2015) michctapp · cites it 2× “, quoting MCL 780.767(1) (quotation marks omitted).”
People v. Law (1999) mich · cites it 3× “” MCL 780.767(1); MSA 28.1287(767)(1). Thus, this case turns on whether the amount of the loss sustained by the victim includes interest.”
People v. Fawaz (2012) michctapp “People v Gahan, 456 Mich 264, 276 ; 571 NW2d 503 (1997); MCL 780.767(4). “The amount of restitution to be paid by a defendant must be based on the actual loss suffered by the victim.”
People v. Avignone (1993) michctapp · cites it 5× “We urge the court to take evidence from all the parties involved and to make specific findings in conformity with the requirements of MCL 780.767; MSA 28.1287(767). We further urge the court to articulate the substance of any evidence, not placed directly on the record, upon…”
Show all 104 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 780.767(1) — 47 cases
People v. Grant (1997) mich “In imposing restitution as part of a sentence under the act, this statute, like the probation statute, does not expressly state that a sentencing judge is required to hold a separate hearing or make express findings regarding a defendant’s ability to pay restitution at…”
PEOPLE v. McKINLEY (2014) mich “11 MCL 780.767, for example, sets forth the factors for consideration and the burden of proof in setting the amount of restitution.”
People v. Lueth (2003) michctapp “At the time at least some of the crimes were committed, the restitution statute, MCL 780.767(1) required the sentencing court to consider “the financial resources and earning ability of the defendant, [and] the financial needs of the defendant and the defendant’s dependents.”
People v. Lee (2016) michctapp “Accordingly, the court is required to consider the amount of the victim’s “loss,” MCL 780.767(1), and order the defendant to “make full restitution,” MCL 780.”
People v. Gubachy (2007) michctapp “1a discusses a “felony, misdemeanor, or ordinance violation” instead of a “crime” and “cost” instead of “costs.” MCL 769.1a has not been amended since defendant’s sentencing.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 780.767(2) — 8 cases
People of Michigan v. Javion James Rodgers (2019) michctapp
People of Michigan v. Kenyetta Hycine Perez (2016) michctapp
People of Michigan v. Bud Bryant (2017) michctapp
People of Michigan v. Bud Bryant (2017) michctapp
People of Michigan v. Matthew David Jaqua (2017) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 780.767(3) — 2 cases
People of Michigan v. Sharoc Richardson (2016) michctapp
People of Michigan v. Ali Akbar Dixon (2026) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 780.767(4) — 60 cases
PEOPLE v. McKINLEY (2014) mich “11 MCL 780.767, for example, sets forth the factors for consideration and the burden of proof in setting the amount of restitution.”
People v. Grant (1997) mich “In imposing restitution as part of a sentence under the act, this statute, like the probation statute, does not expressly state that a sentencing judge is required to hold a separate hearing or make express findings regarding a defendant’s ability to pay restitution at…”
People v. Fawaz (2012) michctapp “People v Gahan, 456 Mich 264, 276 ; 571 NW2d 503 (1997); MCL 780.767(4). “The amount of restitution to be paid by a defendant must be based on the actual loss suffered by the victim.”
People v. Cross (2008) michctapp “Under Guajardo , the trial court was permitted to order restitution for lost profits under MCL 780.767; consequently, defendant has not established plain error.”
People v. Corbin (2015) michctapp “, quoting MCL 780.767(1) (quotation marks omitted).”
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.