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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 780.792 (2026)

Report; impact statement.

✓ current as of July 2026
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


780.792 Report; impact statement.

Sec. 42.

    (1) If a report is to be prepared for the juvenile's disposition or for a sentencing in a proceeding that is a designated case, the victim has the right to submit a written or oral impact statement to the person preparing the report for that person's use in preparing the report.

    (2) If no presentence report is prepared, the court shall notify the prosecuting attorney of the date and time of sentencing at least 10 days prior to the disposition or sentencing.

    (3) Upon the victim's request, a victim's written statement under this section shall be included in the report.

History: Add. 1988, Act 22, Eff. June 1, 1988 ;-- Am. 2000, Act 503, Eff. June 1, 2001

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 2021–2024 · leading case: People Of Mi V Micheline Nicole Leffew (Mich. 2022).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People of Michigan v. Jarviz James Brown (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “” MCL 780.792(1)(a). The trial court declined to instruct the jury on self-defense relative to the charge against West of intentional discharge of a firearm from a vehicle causing serious impairment because it concluded that West’s testimony did not support such an instruction.”
People Of Mi V Micheline Nicole Leffew (Mich. 2022). “974, specifically preserves the common-law right of an individual to use force in self-defense or in defense of another person, and § 2, MCL 780.792, removes the traditional common-law duty to retreat so long as the person asserting the affirmative defense was not committing a…”
People of Michigan v. Eric Arlington Ogilvie (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “21, which correspond with MCL 780.792(1). The trial court did not read M Crim JI 7.”
People of Michigan v. Eric Arlington Ogilvie (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “21, which correspond with MCL 780.792(1). The trial court did not read M Crim JI 7.”
People of Michigan v. Micheline Nicole Leffew (Mich. 2022). “974, specifically preserves the common-law right of an individual to use force in self-defense or in defense of another person, and § 2, MCL 780.792, removes the traditional common-law duty to retreat so long as the person asserting the affirmative defense was not committing a…”
People of Michigan v. Jeremiah James Leffew (Mich. 2022). “974, specifically preserves the common-law right of an individual to use force in self-defense or in defense of another person, and § 2, MCL 780.792, removes the traditional common-law duty to retreat so long as the person asserting the affirmative defense was not committing a…”
People of Michigan v. Roderick Dewayne Barnes Jr (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “21, which correspond with MCL 780.792(1). [Id. at 37.] The defendant argued that the instructions were improper “because he merely threatened to use deadly force, and a threat of deadly force is not the use of deadly force.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 780.792(1) — 3 cases
People of Michigan v. Eric Arlington Ogilvie (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “21, which correspond with MCL 780.792(1). The trial court did not read M Crim JI 7.”
People of Michigan v. Eric Arlington Ogilvie (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “21, which correspond with MCL 780.792(1). The trial court did not read M Crim JI 7.”
People of Michigan v. Roderick Dewayne Barnes Jr (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “21, which correspond with MCL 780.792(1). [Id. at 37.] The defendant argued that the instructions were improper “because he merely threatened to use deadly force, and a threat of deadly force is not the use of deadly force.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 780.792(1)(a) — 1 case
People of Michigan v. Jarviz James Brown (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “” MCL 780.792(1)(a). The trial court declined to instruct the jury on self-defense relative to the charge against West of intentional discharge of a firearm from a vehicle causing serious impairment because it concluded that West’s testimony did not support such an instruction.”
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.