WILLIAM VAN REGENMORTER CRIME VICTIM'S RIGHTS ACT
Act 87 of 1985
780.786b Removal of case from adjudicative process; notice required; hearing; consultation of victim with prosecuting attorney.
Sec. 36b.
(1) Except for a dismissal based upon a judicial finding on the record that the petition and the facts supporting it are insufficient to support a claim of jurisdiction under section 2(a)(1) of chapter XIIA of the probate code of 1939, 1939 PA 288, MCL 712A.2, a case involving the alleged commission of an offense, as defined in section 31, by a juvenile shall not be diverted, placed on the consent calendar, or made subject to any other prepetition or preadjudication procedure that removes the case from the adjudicative process unless the court gives written notice to the prosecuting attorney of the court's intent to remove the case from the adjudicative process and allows the prosecuting attorney the opportunity to address the court on that issue before the case is removed from the adjudicative process. Before any formal or informal action is taken, the prosecutor shall give the victim notice of the time and place of the hearing on the proposed removal of the case from the adjudicative process. The victim has the right to attend the hearing and to address the court at the hearing. As part of any other order removing any case from the adjudicative process, the court shall order the juvenile or the juvenile's parents to provide full restitution as provided in section 44.
(2) Before finalizing any informal disposition, preadjudication, or expedited procedure, the prosecuting attorney shall offer the victim the opportunity to consult with the prosecuting attorney to obtain the views of the victim about that manner of disposing of the case.
History: Add. 2000, Act 503, Eff. June 1, 2001
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
3
cases, 2009–2020 · leading case:
In Re Lee, 761 N.W.2d 432 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).
In Re Lee, 761 N.W.2d 432 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 20× “The prosecutor argues that the family court faded to comply with MCL 780.786b and MCR 3.932(B), which require the court to give written notice of its intent to divert such cases so that both the prosecutor and the crime victims are afforded an opportunity to address the court…”
in Re T J Diehl Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 14× “932(B) states that “[a] case involving the alleged commission of an offense listed in the [CVRA] may only be removed from the adjudicative process upon compliance with the procedures set forth in [MCL 780.786b].” MCL 780.786b(1) provides, in relevant part: [A] case involving the…”
in Re T J Diehl Minor (Mich. 2020).
“, allows a family court to revoke its previous authorization of a juvenile delinquency petition over the objection of the prosecution; (2) whether MCL 780.786b provides family courts with the independent authority to remove an already authorized delinquency matter from the…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 780.786b(1) — 1 case
in Re T J Diehl Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
“932(B) states that “[a] case involving the alleged commission of an offense listed in the [CVRA] may only be removed from the adjudicative process upon compliance with the procedures set forth in [MCL 780.786b].” MCL 780.786b(1) provides, in relevant part: [A] case involving the…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 780.786b(2) — 1 case
In Re Lee, 761 N.W.2d 432 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).
“The prosecutor argues that the family court faded to comply with MCL 780.786b and MCR 3.932(B), which require the court to give written notice of its intent to divert such cases so that both the prosecutor and the crime victims are afforded an opportunity to address the court…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 780.786b(l) — 1 case
In Re Lee, 761 N.W.2d 432 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).
“The prosecutor argues that the family court faded to comply with MCL 780.786b and MCR 3.932(B), which require the court to give written notice of its intent to divert such cases so that both the prosecutor and the crime victims are afforded an opportunity to address the court…”
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.