Legislative Analysis
Phone: (517) 373-8080
WRONGFUL IMPRISONMENT COMPENSATION ACT
http://www.house.mi.gov/hfa
House Bill 5431 (H-1) as reported from committee
Analysis available at
Sponsor: Rep. Joey Andrews http://www.legislature.mi.gov
Committee: Criminal Justice
Complete to 12-10-24
SUMMARY:
House Bill 5431 would amend the Wrongful Imprisonment Compensation Act, which allows
individuals who were convicted under a state law and imprisoned in a state correctional facility
for a crime they did not commit to sue the state in the Court of Claims for compensation for
their wrongful imprisonment. Among other things, the bill would change procedures for an
action brought under the act, the evidence that merits a favorable judgment and the criteria for
considering it, and the time frame in which certain actions may be brought.
Plaintiff
The act uses the term plaintiff, which it defines as the individual making a claim for
compensation under the act. The bill would add that plaintiff includes a trustee or conservator
for that individual if the individual is not competent to act as plaintiff.
Answer to complaint, discovery
Under the act, a copy of the complaint the plaintiff has filed to initiate the lawsuit must be
served on the attorney general and on the prosecuting attorney for the county where the plaintiff
was convicted. The attorney general and prosecuting attorney may answer and contest the
complaint.
The bill would require the prosecuting attorney to file an appearance within 60 days if they
wish to participate further in the action. An answer to a complaint would have to be served and
filed no later than 60 days after service of the complaint, but time extensions could be requested
if there is a showing of good cause, to allow the attorney general to determine whether
compensation under the act is appropriate before formal discovery begins. The bill would
prohibit discovery from being conducted before the attorney general files an answer.
Proof entitling judgment in plaintiff’s favor
Currently, in an action under the act, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment in their favor if they
prove all of the following 1 by clear and convincing evidence: 2
• That they were convicted of one or more crimes under state law for which they were
sentenced to a term of imprisonment in a state correctional facility and served at least
part of the sentence.
• That their judgment of conviction was reversed or vacated and the charges were
dismissed or they were determined upon retrial to be not guilty. (However, the plaintiff
is not entitled to compensation under the act if they were convicted of another criminal
offense arising from the same transaction and that offense was not dismissed or they
were convicted of that offense on retrial.)
1
Under both the act and the bill, the plaintiff also must attach to their verified complaint documentation that establishes
these facts.
2
In this context, something is proven by clear and convincing evidence if it is shown to be highly probable to be true.
House Fiscal Agency Page 1 of 5
 • That new evidence demonstrates that they did not perpetrate the crime and were not an
accomplice or accessory to the acts that were the basis of the conviction, results in the
reversal or vacation of the charges in the judgment of conviction or a pardon from the
governor, and results in either dismissal of all the charges or a finding of not guilty on
all the charges upon retrial.
New evidence means any evidence that was not presented in the proceedings leading
to plaintiff’s conviction, including new testimony, expert interpretation, the results of
DNA testing, or other test results relating to evidence that was presented in the
proceedings leading to plaintiff’s conviction. New evidence does not include a
recantation by a witness unless there is other evidence to support the recantation or
unless the prosecuting attorney for the county in which the plaintiff was convicted or
the attorney general (if the Department of the Attorney General prosecuted the case)
agrees that the recantation constitutes new evidence without other evidence to support
the recantation. [The bill would change the italicized phrase to, in the first instance,
presented to a trier of fact during a proceeding that determined guilt and, in the second
instance, presented to a trier of fact when guilt was decided.]
The bill would instead provide that, in an action under the act, the plaintiff is entitled to
judgment in their favor if they prove all of the following by a preponderance of the evidence:3
• That they were convicted of one or more crimes under state law for which they were
sentenced to a term of imprisonment in a state correctional facility, and served at least
part of the sentence, or in relation to which they were committed to a residential mental
health facility. 4
• Either of the following:
o That their judgment of conviction was reversed or vacated and the charges were
dismissed or they were determined upon retrial to be not guilty. (However, they
are not entitled to compensation under the act if they were convicted of another
criminal offense arising from the same transaction and that offense was not
dismissed or they were convicted of that offense on retrial.)
o That they received a pardon from the governor for the crime they were
incarcerated for.
• One of the following:
o That new evidence demonstrates that they did not perpetrate the crime and were
not an accomplice or accessory to the acts that were the basis of the conviction,
and the new evidence either resulted in the reversal or vacation of the charges
in the judgment of conviction or resulted in a pardon from the governor.
o That the reversal or vacation of the judgment of conviction was on the basis of
insufficient evidence supporting the conviction, and they did not perpetrate the
crime and were not an accomplice or accessory to the acts that were the basis
of the conviction. (See also “Window for insufficient evidence claim,” below.)
3
In this context, something is proven by a preponderance of the evidence if it is shown that it is more probable to be
true than to be not true.
4
It seems unclear whether an individual committed to a residential mental health facility could claim compensation
under the bill. Section 3 of the act limits the individuals who can bring an action under the act to only those who were
wrongfully “convicted under the law of this state and subsequently imprisoned in a state correctional facility”
(emphasis added). Much of the rest of the act relates to individuals who have, specifically, been imprisoned.
House Fiscal Agency HB 5431 as reported Page 2 of 5
 o That new evidence was presented to the court that reversed or vacated their
conviction, but relief was granted on another basis, and the new evidence
demonstrates that they did not perpetrate the crime and were not an accomplice
or accessory to the acts that were the basis of the conviction.
Consideration by the court
Under the bill, in determining whether the plaintiff has met their burden of proof at any stage
of the proceedings (including at trial), the court could consider the following:
• The entire record of the plaintiff’s criminal case, which includes the lower court
records, the plea or trial transcripts, the appellate record, and the record of any
postconviction proceedings.
• Evidence that was seized or obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the
United States Constitution or in violation of section 11 of Article I of the state
constitution.
In addition, in exercising its discretion regarding the weight and credibility of evidence, the
court would have to give due consideration to the difficulties of proof caused by the passage
of time, the loss or destruction of evidence, the death or unavailability of witnesses, and other
factors not caused by the parties. The court could not find that a witness who testified at the
plaintiff’s criminal trial or in post-trial proceedings is not credible solely because the witness
is not testifying at the trial held on the plaintiff’s claim under this act.
Compensation
Currently, a court that finds that a plaintiff was wrongfully convicted and imprisoned must
award the plaintiff $50,000 for each year they were imprisoned (with a prorated amount for
partial years), reimbursement for any money collected by the state from the plaintiff for a share
of their cost of care as provided under the State Correctional Facility Reimbursement Act, and
reasonable attorney fees incurred in bringing an action under the act.
The bill would provide that, for purposes of calculating compensation, the time a plaintiff was
imprisoned must include time they served in pretrial detention. The bill also would remove a
provision that now prohibits a court from awarding attorney fees unless the plaintiff has
actually paid the amount awarded to the attorney
In addition, the act now provides that compensation cannot be awarded for any time during
which the plaintiff was imprisoned under a concurrent or consecutive sentence for another
conviction. The bill would add that this applies regardless of whether the sentence for that other
conviction was running before or after the sentence for the conviction the claim is based on.
However, these provisions would not apply to any concurrent or consecutive sentence relating
to any prior offense that the plaintiff was on parole for at the time of the wrongful conviction,
if that parole was revoked solely on the basis of the wrongful conviction.
Release of claims against the state
The act now provides that the acceptance by the plaintiff of an award under the act, or of a
compromise or settlement of the claim, unless procured by fraud, is final and conclusive on the
plaintiff, constitutes a complete release of all claims against the state, and is a complete bar to
any action in state court by the plaintiff against the state based on the same subject matter.
The bill would delete the language italicized above.
House Fiscal Agency HB 5431 as reported Page 3 of 5
 Action in federal court
The act now provides that the acceptance by the plaintiff of an award under the act, or of a
compromise or settlement of the claim, does not operate as a waiver of, or bar to, any action in
federal court against an individual alleged to have been involved in the investigation,
prosecution, or conviction that gave rise to the wrongful conviction or imprisonment.
The bill would amend the above to change “action in federal court” to “action and recovery in
federal court,” and to provide that the action and recovery in federal court could be against a
political subdivision as well as an individual.
Setoff
The act now provides that an award of compensation under the act is subject to setoff or
reimbursement for damages obtained for the wrongful conviction or imprisonment from any
other person.
The bill would modify this language to account for attorney fees and recovery from political
subdivisions. Under the bill, an award of compensation, or compensation under a compromise
or settlement of a claim, under the act would be subject to setoff or reimbursement for damages
received directly by the plaintiff that were obtained for the wrongful conviction or
imprisonment from any other person or political subdivision, after the damage award is reduced
for attorney fees.
Expungement
Under the act, if a court determines that a plaintiff was wrongfully convicted and imprisoned,
the court must enter an order requiring that any record of the arrest, fingerprints, conviction,
and sentence of the plaintiff related to the wrongful conviction be expunged from the criminal
history record.
The bill would add that the parties could stipulate to the entry of such an order without an
award of compensation under the act.
Window for insufficient evidence claim
Generally under the act, an action for compensation must be commenced within three years
after the entry of a verdict, order, judgment, or pardon exonerating the plaintiff. (This three-
year period is tolled if the state challenges or appeals the verdict, order, judgment, or pardon.)
The bill would provide an exception from the general three-year rule to allow an individual to
bring a claim within 18 months after the bill takes effect if the individual can show that they
qualify for an award because, as provided above, the reversal or vacation of the judgment of
conviction was on the basis of insufficient evidence supporting the conviction, and that they
did not perpetrate the crime and were not an accomplice or accessory to the acts that were the
basis of the conviction.
Compensation under a compromise or settlement of a claim
Finally, in several places where the act now refers only to an award off compensation under
the act (for example, to provide that it is not a finding of wrongdoing, or that it is not subject
to income taxes), the bill would add “or compensation under a compromise or settlement of a
claim” under the act. Note that the phrase is already included in some provisions of the act.
MCL 691.1752 et seq.
House Fiscal Agency HB 5431 as reported Page 4 of 5
FISCAL IMPACT:
The bill would result in an indeterminate, but likely marginal, annual increase in claims and
awards for compensation from the Wrongful Imprisonment Compensation Fund (WICF). The
current balance in the fund would be expected to cover an anticipated increase of claims and
payments in the short term. However, an ongoing increase would likely require a corresponding
increase to the average annual appropriated deposit into the WICF. In FY 2023-24, $10.0
million was deposited into the WICF, and the executive recommended budget includes $10.0
million for deposit in FY 2024-25. Average yearly compensation amounts over the last four
fiscal years have been approximately $9.8 million.
As of the end of December 2023, there were 11 claims seeking a total of nearly $10.0 million
in compensation in FY 2023-24, including attorney fees. Additional claims will likely later be
identified and paid within the fiscal year. The balance of the WICF at the end of December
was $19.8 million. If annual average claims exceed $10.0 million in future years, an increase
in the annually appropriated deposit would be needed to support it.
The bill also would have an indeterminate fiscal impact on local court funding units. To the
extent that there is an increase in the number of petitions filed in courts and a corresponding
increase in the number of petitions granted by courts, costs would be incurred as a result of
increased court caseloads and related administrative costs.
POSITIONS:
Representatives of the following entities testified in support of the bill (3-5-24):
• Department of the Attorney General
• State Appellate Defender Office
• Cooley Law Innocence Project
• The Innocence Project
• Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan
• Safe and Just Michigan
• Organization of Exonerees
• After Innocence
The following entities indicated support for the bill (3-5-24):
• Humanity for Prisoners
• University of Michigan Law Innocence Clinic
• Michigan Association for Justice
Legislative Analyst: Rick Yuille
Fiscal Analysts: Michael Cnossen
Robin Risko
■ This analysis was prepared by nonpartisan House Fiscal Agency staff for use by House members in their
deliberations and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent.
House Fiscal Agency HB 5431 as reported Page 5 of 5


Statutes affected:
Substitute (H-1): 691.1752
House Introduced Bill: 691.1752
As Passed by the House: 691.1752