A.Jurisdiction of Preliminary Examination and Attendant Hearings
The district court has jurisdiction of “[p]reliminary examinations in all felony cases and misdemeanor cases not cognizable by the district court and all matters allowed at the preliminary examination under . . . MCL 766.1[ et seq].” MCL 600.8311(e); see also MCR 6.008(A). Felony is defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure as “a violation of a penal law of this state for which the offender, upon conviction, may be punished by imprisonment for more than 1 year or an offense expressly designated by law to be a felony.” MCL 761.1(f). Accordingly, a defendant charged with a “circuit court misdemeanor” (a misdemeanor offense that is punishable by more than one year of imprisonment) is entitled to a preliminary examination under MCL 600.8311(e).1 See People v Burrill, 391 Mich 124, 131, 131 n 12 (1974); see also People v Smith (Timothy), 423 Mich 427, 443-446 (1985).
The district court does not exceed its jurisdiction by ordering discovery relevant to the probable cause determination, or by “conducting a due process hearing before or during the preliminary examination, or before the defendant is bound over for trial.” People v Laws, 218 Mich App 447, 450-454 (1996). “Certain due process hearings, such as Miranda,[2] Tucker,[3] and Walker[4] hearings, are at times necessary to a proper preliminary examination[,]” and “the district court may rule on such allegations of due process violations where the facts warrant.” Laws, 218 Mich App at 453-454 (concluding that “because the district court possesses the authority to conduct necessary due process hearings and to assess the credibility of witnesses when determining whether a crime has been committed and whether the defendant committed the crime, the district court’s actions in [ordering the in camera review of police reports relevant to the defendant’s claims of due process violations] did not exceed its jurisdiction[]” of the preliminary examination under MCL 600.8311).
Under MCL 766.7, the preliminary examination may be adjourned, continued, or delayed, and “[a]n action on the part of the [district court] in adjourning or continuing any case does not cause the [district court] to lose jurisdiction of the case.” See also People v Dunson, 139 Mich App 511, 513 (1985) (“[t]he defect of not bringing [a] defendant to a timely preliminary examination is not[] . . . jurisdictional[]”).
B.Venue for Preliminary Examination
MCL 600.8312 sets out general venue rules based on the type of district in which the criminal conduct took place. See Chapter 2 for general discussion of venue.
Special venue rules apply with respect to preliminary examinations. MCL 762.3(3) provides:
“With regard to . . . examinations conducted for offenses not cognizable by the [district court], the following special provisions apply:
(a) If an offense is committed on the boundary of 2 or more counties, districts or political subdivisions or within 1 mile thereof, venue is proper in any of the counties, districts or political subdivisions concerned.
(b) If an offense is committed in or upon any railroad train, automobile, aircraft, vessel or other conveyance in transit, and it cannot readily be determined in which county, district or political subdivision the offense was committed, venue is proper in any county, district or political subdivision through or over which the conveyance passed in the course of its journey.
(c) Except as otherwise provided in [MCL 762.3(3)(b)], if it appears to the attorney general that the alleged state offense has been committed within the state and that it is impossible to determine within which county, district or political subdivision it occurred, the violation may be alleged to have been committed and may be prosecuted and punished or the examination conducted in such county, district or political subdivision as the attorney general designates. The responsibility and the authority with reference to all steps in the prosecution of such case shall be the same, as between the prosecuting attorney of the county so designated and the attorney general, as though it were an established fact that the alleged criminal acts, if committed at all, were committed within that county, district or political subdivision.”
A district court has no authority to grant a motion for change of venue before a preliminary examination is held. In re Attorney General, 129 Mich App 128, 132 (1983). MCL 762.7, the statute granting courts of record authority to change venue in criminal cases, is only applicable to circuit courts in felony cases. In re Attorney General, 129 Mich App at 131.
1 See Section 7.2(A) for additional discussion of the district court’s jurisdiction over preliminary examinations. For a thorough discussion of district court jurisdiction, see Chapter 2.
2 Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966). See the Michigan Judicial Institute’s Evidence Benchbook, Chapter 3, for discussion of self-incrimination and Miranda.
3 United States v Tucker, 404 US 443 (1972).
4 People v Walker (On Rehearing), 374 Mich 331 (1965).