The Committee on Model Criminal Jury Instructions has adopted amendments to M Crim JI 13.1 (Assaulting, Resisting, or Obstructing a Police Officer or Person Performing Duties) and M Crim JI 13.2 (Assaulting or Obstructing Officer or Official Performing Duties). The amended instructions place more emphasis on the requirement that the jury receive instructions on the legal framework for assessing whether the officers’ actions were lawful. See People v Carroll, 514 Mich 851; 8 NW3d 576 (2024). Additionally, the references to “resisting” and “opposing” have been removed from M Crim JI 13.2, as those terms do not appear in MCL 750.479. The amended instructions are effective November 1, 2025.
[AMENDED] M Crim JI 13.1
Assaulting, Resisting, or Obstructing a Police Officer or Person Performing Duties
(1) The defendant is charged with the crime of assaulting, battering, wounding, resisting, obstructing, opposing, or endangering1 a [police officer / (state authorized person)2] who was performing [his / her] duties. To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
(2) First, that the defendant assaulted, battered, wounded, resisted, obstructed, opposed, or endangered1 [name complainant], who was a [police officer / (state authorized person)]. [“Obstruct” includes the use or threatened use of physical interference or force or a knowing failure to comply with a lawful command.]3 [The defendant must have actually resisted by what (he / she) said or did, but physical violence is not necessary.]4
(3) Second, that the defendant knew or had reason to know that [name complainant] was a [police officer / (state authorized person)] performing [his / her] duties at the time.
(4) Third, that [name complainant] gave the defendant a lawful command, was making a lawful arrest, or was otherwise performing a lawful act. [Provide detailed legal instructions regarding the applicable law governing the officer’s or official’s legal authority to act.]5
[Use the following paragraphs as warranted by the charge and proofs:]
(5) Fourth, that the defendant’s act in assaulting, battering, wounding, resisting, obstructing, opposing, or endangering1 a [police officer / (state authorized person)] caused the death of [name complainant].
(6) Fourth, that the defendant’s act in assaulting, battering, wounding, resisting, obstructing, opposing, or endangering1 a [police officer / (state authorized person)] caused [name complainant] to suffer serious impairment of a body function.6
(7) Fourth, that the defendant’s act in assaulting, battering, wounding, resisting, obstructing, opposing, or endangering1 a [police officer / (state authorized person)] caused a bodily injury requiring medical attention or medical care to [name complainant].
Use Notes
This instruction should be used when the defendant is charged with violating MCL 750.81d. A defendant could be charged under MCL 750.479 with assaulting or obstructing an officer or duly authorized person. In that event, use M Crim JI 13.2.
1. MCL 750.81d prohibits “assault[ing], batter[ing], wound[ing], resist[ing], obstruct[ing], oppos[ing], or endanger[ing]” certain officers or officials. The court may read all of that phrase or may read whatever portions it finds appropriate according to the charge and the evidence.
2. Person for purposes of this statute is defined to include police officers, deputy sheriffs, firefighters, and emergency medical service personnel, among others. MCL 750.81d(7)(b).
3. The court may include this sentence where necessary. Obstruct is defined in MCL 750.81d(7)(a), as amended in 2006.
4. The court may include this sentence where necessary.
5. See People v Carroll, 514 Mich 851; 8 NW3d 576 (2024) (holding that trial court must provide jury with “a legal frameworkfor assessing whether the officers’ actions were lawful”); M Crim JI 13.5.
6. MCL 750.81d(7)(c) defines serious impairment of a body function according to MCL 257.58c in the Michigan Vehicle Code. See M Crim JI 15.2a.
[AMENDED] M Crim JI 13.2
Assaulting or Obstructing Officer or Official Performing Duties
(1) The defendant is charged with the crime of assaulting, battering, wounding, obstructing, or endangering1 a [state authorized person]2 who was acting in the performance of [his / her] duties. To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
(2) First, that the defendant assaulted, battered, wounded, obstructed, or endangered1 [name complainant], who was a [state authorized person] performing [his / her] duties. [“Obstruct” includes the use or threatened use of physical interference or force or a knowing failure to comply with a lawful command.]3
(3) Second, that the defendant knew or had reason to know that [name complainant] was then a [state authorized person] performing [his / her] duties at the time.
(4) Third, that [name complainant] gave the defendant a lawful command, was making a lawful arrest, or was otherwise performing a lawful act. [Provide detailed legal instructions regarding the applicable law governing the officer’s or official’s legal authority to act.]4
(5) Fourth, that the defendant’s actions were intended by the defendant, that is, not accidental.
[Use the following paragraphs as warranted by the charge and proofs:]
(6) Fifth, that the defendant’s act in assaulting, battering, wounding, obstructing, or endangering1 a [state authorized person] caused the death of [name complainant].
(7) Fifth, that the defendant’s act in assaulting, battering, wounding, obstructing, or endangering1 a [state authorized person] caused serious impairment of a body function5 to [name complainant].
(8) Fifth, that the defendant’s act in assaulting, battering, wounding, obstructing, or endangering1 a [state authorized person] caused a bodily injury requiring medical attention or medical care to [name complainant].6
Use Notes
This instruction should be used when the defendant is charged with violating MCL 750.479. A defendant could be charged under MCL 750.81d with assaulting, resisting, or obstructing an officer.
In that event, use M Crim JI 13.1.
1. MCL 750.479 prohibits “assault[ing], batter[ing], wound[ing], obstruct[ing], or endanger[ing]” certain officers or officials. The court may read all of that phrase or may read whatever portions it finds appropriate according to the charge and the evidence.
2. The statute lists authorized persons as medical examiners, township treasurers, judges, magistrates, probation officers, parole officers, prosecutors, city attorneys, court employees, court officers, or other officers or duly authorized persons. MCL 750.479(1)(a).
3. The court may include this sentence where necessary. Obstruct is defined in MCL 750.479(8)(a), as amended in 2002.
4. See People v Carroll, 514 Mich 851; 8 NW3d 576 (2024) (holding that trial court must provide jury with “a legal framework for assessing whether the officers’ actions were lawful”); M Crim JI 13.5.
5. MCL 750.479(8)(b) defines serious impairment of a body function according to MCL 257.58c in the Michigan Vehicle Code. See M Crim JI 15.2a.
6. This aggravating circumstance could be the charged offense or a lesser offense, if warranted by the evidence.
The Committee on Model Criminal Jury Instructions has adopted amendments to M Crim JI 20.6 (Aiders and Abettors – Complainant Mentally Incapable, Mentally Incapacitated, or Physically Helpless) and M Crim JI 20.16 (Complainant Mentally Incapable, Mentally Incapacitated, or Physically Helpless). The amended instructions account for a recent change to the statutory definition of “mentally incapacitated.” See MCL 750.520a(k), as amended by 2023 PA 65. The amended instructions are effective November 1, 2025.
[AMENDED] M Crim JI 20.6
Aiders and Abettors – Complainant Mentally Incapable, Mentally Incapacitated, or Physically Helpless
(1) [Second / Third], that before or during the alleged sexual act, the defendant was assisted by another person, who either did something or gave encouragement to assist the commission of the crime.
(2) [Third / Fourth], that [name complainant] was [mentally incapable / mentally incapacitated / physically helpless] at the time of the alleged act.
[Choose one or more of (a), (b), or (c):]
(a) “Mentally incapable” means that [name complainant] was suffering from a mental disease or defect that made [him / her] incapable of appraising either the physical or moral nature of [his / her] conduct.1
(b) “Mentally incapacitated” means that [name complainant] was unable to understand or control what [he / she] was doing because of [drugs / alcohol / (identify intoxicant) / something done to (him / her) without (his / her) consent]. [It does not matter if (name complainant) voluntarily consumed the (drugs / alcohol / [identify intoxicant]).]2
(c) “Physically helpless” means that [name complainant] was unconscious, asleep, or physically unable to communicate that [he / she] did not want to take part in the alleged act.
(3) [Fourth / Fifth], that the defendant knew or should have known that [name complainant] was [mentally incapable / mentally incapacitated / physically helpless] at the time of the alleged act.
Use Notes
Use this instruction in conjunction with M Crim JI 20.1, Criminal Sexual Conduct in the First Degree, M Crim JI 20.2, Criminal Sexual Conduct in the Second Degree, or M Crim JI 20.18, Assault with Intent to Commit Criminal Sexual Conduct in the Second Degree (Contact).
1. MCL 750.520a provides the definitions of mentally incapable, mentally incapacitated, and physically helpless.
2. This sentence does not need to be read where the consumption of an intoxicating substance is not at issue.
[AMENDED] M Crim JI 20.16
Complainant Mentally Incapable, Mentally Incapacitated, or Physically Helpless
(1) [Second / Third], that [name complainant] was [mentally incapable / mentally incapacitated / physically helpless] at the
time of the alleged act.
[Choose one or more of (a), (b), or (c):]
(a) “Mentally incapable” means that [name complainant] was suffering from a mental disease or defect that made [him / her] incapable of appraising either the physical or moral nature of [his / her] conduct.1
(b) “Mentally incapacitated” means that [name complainant] was unable to understand or control what [he / she] was doing because of [drugs / alcohol / (identify intoxicant) / something done to (him / her) without (his / her) consent]. [It does not matter if (name complainant) voluntarily consumed the (drugs / alcohol / [identify intoxicant]).]2
(c) “Physically helpless” means that [name complainant] was unconscious, asleep, or physically unable to communicate that [he / she] did not want to take part in the alleged act.
(2) [Third / Fourth], that the defendant knew or should have known that [name complainant] was [mentally incapable / mentally incapacitated / physically helpless] at the time of the alleged act.
Use Notes
Use this instruction in conjunction with M Crim JI 20.12, Criminal Sexual Conduct in the Third Degree, or M Crim JI 20.13, Criminal Sexual Conduct in the Fourth Degree.
1. MCL 750.520a provides the definitions of mentally incapable, mentally incapacitated, and physically helpless.
2. This sentence does not need to be read where the consumption of an intoxicating substance is not at issue.
The Committee on Model Criminal Jury Instructions has adoptednew instructions for five election-related crimes found in MCL 168.931(1) and MCL 168.932(a): M Crim JI 43.1 (Offering an Incentive to Influence Voting), M Crim JI 43.2 (Accepting or Agreeing to Accept an Incentive Regarding Voting), M Crim JI 43.2a (Seeking an Incentive from a Candidate), M Crim JI 43.3 (Voter Coercion – Employment Threat), and M Crim JI 43.3a (Voter Coercion – Religious Threat). The new instructions are effective November 1, 2025
[NEW] M Crim JI 43.1
Offering an Incentive to Influence Voting
(1) The defendant is charged with the crime of offering an incentive to influence voting. To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
(2) First, that the defendant [gave / loaned / promised] [name valuable consideration]1 to or for the benefit of any individual. It does not matter if the defendant did so [himself / herself] directly or did so indirectly through another person or method. A [gift of / loan of / promise to give] [name valuable consideration] must be specific to an individual and does not include purely political speech that promises benefits to the public in general.
(3) Second, that when the defendant [gave / loaned / promised] [name valuable consideration], [he / she] intended [to influence how any individual would vote / to reward any individual for not voting].2
Use Notes
1. MCL 168.931(4) defines valuable consideration as including but not limited to “money, property, a gift, a prize or chance for a prize, a fee, a loan, an office, a position, an appointment, or employment.”
2. This is a specific intent crime.
[NEW] M Crim JI 43.2
Accepting or Agreeing to Accept an Incentive Regarding Voting
(1) The defendant is charged with the crime of accepting or agreeing to accept an incentive regarding voting. To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
(2) First, that the defendant received or made an agreement to receive [name valuable consideration]1 for [his / her] own benefit or for the benefit of someone else.
(3) Second, that when the defendant received or agreed to receive [name valuable consideration], the defendant did so intentionally2 in exchange for
[Provide any of the following that apply according to the charges and evidence:]
(a) voting or agreeing to vote at an election.
(b) inducing or attempting to induce someone else to vote at an election.
(c) not voting or agreeing not to vote at an election.
(d) inducing or attempting to induce someone else not to vote at an election.
(e) [Identify other violation.]
(f) both distributing absent voter ballot applications to voters and receiving signed
(g) applications from voters for delivery to the appropriate
Use Notes
1. MCL 168.931(4) defines valuable consideration as including but not limited to “money, property, a gift, a prize or chance for a prize, a fee, a loan, an office, a position, an appointment, or employment.”
2. This is a specific intent crime.
[NEW] M Crim JI 43.2a
Seeking an Incentive from a Candidate
(1) The defendant is charged with the crime of seeking an incentive from a candidate. To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
(2) First, that the defendant requested that [identify candidate]1 provide [him / her] with [identify valuable consideration].2 (3) Second, that when the defendant requested that [identify candidate] provide the [identify valuable consideration], the defendant did so intentionally in exchange for the securing of votes or the influencing of voters with respect to the candidate’s [nomination for / election to] the office of [insert name of office described in the Michigan Election Law Act as stated in the complaint]. This does not include a regular business transaction.
Use Notes
1. The question of whether a person is a “candidate” is a question of law for the judge to resolve before trial. To the extent that there are any factual disputes that affect whether a person can be considered a “candidate,” the instruction should be modified.
2. MCL 168.931(4) defines valuable consideration as including but not limited to “money, property, a gift, a prize or chance for a prize, a fee, a loan, an office, a position, an appointment, or employment.”
[NEW] M Crim JI 43.3
Voter Coercion – Employment Threat
(1) The defendant is charged with the crime of voter coercion by an employer. To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
(2) First, that [name complainant] was an employee of the defendant.
(3) Second, that the defendant discharged or threatened to discharge [name complainant] or caused [him / her] to be discharged or to be threatened with being discharged.
(4) Third, that when the defendant did so, [he / she] intended to influence [name complainant]’s vote at an election.1
Use Note
1. This is a specific intent crime.
[NEW] M Crim JI 43.3a
Voter Coercion – Religious Threat
(1) The defendant is charged with the crime of voter coercion by religious threat. To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
(2) First, that the defendant was a [priest / pastor / curate / (identify the office held by the defendant within the religious society)].
(3) Second, that the defendant [(excommunicated / dismissed / expelled) (name complainant) from the (name religious society) / told (name complainant) that (he / she) would suffer religious disapproval / threatened that (name complainant) would be (excommunicated / dismissed / expelled) from the (name religious society)].
(4) Third, that when the defendant did so, [he / she] intended to influence [name complainant]’s vote at an election.1
Use Note
1. This is a specific intent crime.