Statements to Police Under MCL 768.27c

MCL 768.27c is a Michigan statute that lets a court admit, as evidence, a statement a person made to a law enforcement officer describing an injury or a threat of injury to that person. It is an exception to the hearsay rule.^[1] It applies only if five conditions are met, the prosecutor must give advance notice, and it does not override the constitutional right to confront witnesses.^[2][4][6]

Without a rule like this, an officer generally could not repeat in court what someone said at the scene, because hearsay is not admissible unless the rules provide otherwise.^[7]

The five requirements

Under MCL 768.27c(1), evidence of a statement is admissible if all of the following apply:^[2]

1. Subject. The statement purports to narrate, describe, or explain the infliction or threat of physical injury upon the declarant. "Declarant" is the legal term for the person who made the statement.^[2]
2. Type of case. The action is an offense involving domestic violence, or a violation of the prostitution or human trafficking chapters of the Michigan Penal Code.^[2]
3. Timing. The statement was made at or near the time of the infliction or threat of physical injury.^[2]
4. Trustworthiness. The statement was made under circumstances that would indicate its trustworthiness.^[2]
5. Audience. The statement was made to a law enforcement officer.^[2]

Each condition narrows the rule. A statement to a neighbor, a relative or a nurse is outside this statute because it was not made to a law enforcement officer, though another hearsay exception might apply.^[2] The first requirement speaks of injury or threat "upon the declarant."^[2] How that wording fits with the definition added in 2025, which refers to harm to "any individual," is not settled in the sources this guide relies on.^[5]

What changed on April 2, 2025

MCL 768.27c was added in 2006 and amended by 2024 PA 183, effective April 2, 2025.^[8] Two features of the current text are worth knowing as of October 2026.

First, the statute is no longer limited to domestic violence prosecutions. Subsection (1)(b) covers an offense involving domestic violence and also violations of the penal code chapters on prostitution and human trafficking.^[2] The 2026 edition of the Domestic Violence Benchbook still prints subsection (1)(b) in its earlier form, naming only an offense involving domestic violence, although its own summary describes the wider scope.^[8] Where a secondary source and the statute differ, the statute controls.

Second, since April 2, 2025 the statute defines "infliction or threat of physical injury." The phrase includes physically harming or restraining any individual; threatening to harm or physically restrain any individual, or creating a scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause an individual to believe that failure to perform an act would result in physical, psychological, reputational, or financial harm; and facilitating or controlling an individual's access to a controlled substance other than for a legitimate medical purpose.^[5] The first requirement still calls for a statement about injury or threat "upon the declarant."^[2]

What "domestic violence" means in this statute

The statute has its own definition, and it is wider than the crime of domestic assault. An "offense involving domestic violence" means an occurrence of one or more of these acts, when not an act of self-defense: causing or attempting to cause physical or mental harm to a family or household member; placing a family or household member in fear of physical or mental harm; causing or attempting to cause involuntary sexual activity by force, threat of force, or duress; or engaging in activity that would cause a reasonable individual to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested.^[9]

A "family or household member" is a spouse or former spouse, an individual with whom the person resides or has resided, an individual with whom the person has or has had a child in common, or an individual with whom the person has or has had a dating relationship.^[9] The relationship categories for the crime itself are discussed in Who is covered: the domestic relationship.

How close in time is "at or near"?

The statute does not give a number of minutes or hours. In People v Meissner, a complainant's oral and written statements to police described text messages that threatened physical injury, and the timing requirement was met because she made the statements at or very near the time she received one or more of the messages.^[10]

There is one fixed outer limit. Evidence of a statement made more than 5 years before the filing of the current action is inadmissible under this section.^[11]

How a judge assesses trustworthiness

For the trustworthiness requirement, the statute says relevant circumstances include, but are not limited to:^[12]

• whether the statement was made in contemplation of pending or anticipated litigation in which the declarant was interested;^[12]
• whether the declarant has a bias or motive for fabricating the statement, and the extent of any bias or motive;^[12]
• whether the statement is corroborated by evidence other than statements that are admissible only under this section.^[12]

The Court of Appeals has described these as "a nonexclusive list of possible circumstances that may demonstrate trustworthiness," so a judge may consider others.^[13]

The first factor is easy to misread. In Meissner the court explained that it pertains to litigation in which the declarant could gain a property, financial, or similar advantage, such as divorce, child custody, or tort litigation, and that it does not pertain to the victim's report of the charged offense.^[14] In other words, the fact that a report to police may lead to a criminal case is not itself a mark against the statement. A separate pending family court case is the kind of circumstance the factor is about.

Corroboration commonly comes from the other evidence described in this guide: photographs and medical records, the 911 recording, and body camera video.

Notice: 15 days before trial

If the prosecuting attorney intends to offer evidence under MCL 768.27c, the prosecutor must disclose the evidence, including the statements of witnesses or a summary of the substance of any testimony that is expected to be offered, to the defendant not less than 15 days before the scheduled date of trial, or at a later time as allowed by the court for good cause shown.^[4]

This deadline is the same as the one for other-acts evidence under MCL 768.27b, and one day longer than the written-notice deadline in Rule 404(b).^[15][16]

The witness does not have to be unavailable

Some hearsay exceptions apply only when the person who made the statement cannot be brought to court. This one does not. In People v Olney the Court of Appeals said MCL 768.27c "contains no requirement that the complainant-declarant be unavailable in order to admit evidence of a statement that otherwise satisfies the statutory requirements."^[3]

The statute also applies before trial. It covers trials and evidentiary hearings commenced or in progress on or after May 1, 2006, and a preliminary examination is a type of evidentiary hearing.^[17] That means an officer may be allowed to relate a qualifying statement at the preliminary examination in a felony case.

The Confrontation Clause still applies

MCL 768.27c is a rule about hearsay. It is not an exemption from the Sixth Amendment. The general principle, stated by the Court of Appeals, is that evidence that falls within a hearsay exception may still be inadmissible if it violates the Confrontation Clause.^[18]

Under Crawford v Washington, where testimonial evidence is at issue, the Sixth Amendment demands unavailability and a prior opportunity for cross-examination.^[19] Whether a statement to an officer is testimonial depends on the circumstances. Statements are nontestimonial when the circumstances objectively indicate that the primary purpose of the questioning is to enable police to meet an ongoing emergency; they are testimonial when there is no ongoing emergency and the primary purpose is to establish past events potentially relevant to a later prosecution.^[20] In Hammon v Indiana, a domestic case, statements given to officers at the scene after the incident was over were testimonial.^[21]

Putting the two rules together:

Situation	Hearsay rule	Confrontation Clause
The person who made the statement testifies at trial and can be cross-examined	MCL 768.27c can apply; unavailability is not required[3]	When the person appears for cross-examination at trial, the Confrontation Clause places no constraints on the use of the earlier statement[22]
The person does not testify, and the statement was made to help police meet an ongoing emergency	MCL 768.27c can apply if its five conditions are met[2]	Nontestimonial under Davis v Washington[20]
The person does not testify, and the statement described past events after the emergency had ended	MCL 768.27c can apply if its five conditions are met[2]	Testimonial; usable only if the witness is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine[21][19]

A defendant can lose the confrontation objection through his or her own conduct. A statement may be used against a party that wrongfully caused or encouraged the witness's unavailability and did so intending that result, and when hearsay is properly admitted on that basis the confrontation right is treated as waived.^[23][24] The full framework is in Hearsay and the right to confront your accuser.

Privileges are not overridden

The statute says that nothing in it "shall be construed to abrogate any privilege conferred by law."^[25] In a prosecution growing out of a wrong done by one spouse to the other, however, the spousal privilege does not apply to begin with.^[26] See Spousal privilege in Michigan.

What people get wrong

"Anything said to the police comes in." The statute has five conditions, a five-year cut-off and a notice requirement, and a testimonial statement from a witness who does not testify still faces the confrontation analysis.^{[2][11][4][19]}

"If the complaining witness takes it back, the statement is gone." The statute has no unavailability requirement, so a qualifying statement can be offered even when the person who made it testifies differently.^[3] How an earlier statement is used against later testimony is covered in Recanting: when the accuser changes the story.

"Without the witness there is no case." A statement admitted under this statute is one of several kinds of evidence a prosecutor may rely on.^[27] See When the victim does not come to court and What evidence is used in a domestic violence case.