877-Ben-Hall 517-798-5801 877-Ben-Hall Awards & Recognition
A hazing charge at Michigan State University is a criminal offense under MCL 750.411t Michigan’s anti-hazing statute known as Garrett’s Law. Depending on what happened during the alleged hazing, you face a misdemeanor punishable by up to 93 days in jail or a felony carrying up to 15 years in prison. Ben Hall Law defends MSU students facing hazing charges at the 54-B District Court in East Lansing and the Ingham County Circuit Court.
A hazing charge at MSU is a criminal charge brought by the Ingham County Prosecutor’s Office under MCL 750.411t a statute enacted in 2004 that applies to hazing at educational institutions in Michigan. Michigan State University qualifies as an educational institution under MCL 750.411t(7)(a), meaning anyone connected to MSU students, fraternity members, sorority members, club officers can be charged under this law if they participate in hazing. In March 2026, the Michigan Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of MCL 750.411t in the Ethan Cao case. The law is valid. The Ingham County Prosecutor is actively enforcing it.
Under MCL 750.411t, hazing is an intentional, knowing, or reckless act directed against another person that the actor knew or should have known would endanger that person’s physical health or safety. The act must be done for the purpose of pledging, initiating, joining, holding office in, or maintaining membership in any organization connected to an educational institution. If you acted recklessly and a reasonable person would have known the activity was dangerous, that is enough for the Ingham County Prosecutor to charge you.
Anyone who attends, works at, or volunteers with an educational institution can be charged under MCL 750.411t if they participate in hazing, including active members, pledge masters, fraternity officers, and members who were present and actively involved. One critical protection: the victim of the hazing cannot be charged. MCL 750.411t(4) explicitly excludes the individual who was hazed, regardless of whether they consented or voluntarily participated. Talk to Benjamin J. Hall before you say anything to anyone.
The penalty for a hazing charge at Michigan State University depends entirely on what happened to the person who was hazed. Michigan law creates three distinct tiers under MCL 750.411t, and the difference between them is the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony, carrying up to 15 years in prison.
| Result of Hazing | Charge Level | Maximum Incarceration | Maximum Fine | MCL Subsection |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Physical injury | Misdemeanor | 93 days | $1,000 | MCL 750.411t(2)(a) |
| Serious impairment of body function | Felony | 5 years | $2,500 | MCL 750.411t(2)(b) |
| Death | Felony | 15 years | $10,000 | MCL 750.411t(2)(c) |
“Serious impairment of body function” is its own felony tier that sits between physical injury and death. It includes loss of consciousness, organ damage, or severe alcohol poisoning requiring hospitalization. A student who needed emergency treatment at Sparrow Hospital after a hazing event may have suffered a serious impairment under the statute even if they survived.
The charge tier is determined by what happened to the victim, not by what you intended. Under MCL 750.411t, intent is not the threshold; the outcome is. Under MCL 750.411t(3), a hazing conviction does not prevent the prosecutor from filing additional criminal charges arising from the same conduct in the Pi Alpha Phi case. Defendants faced both felony and multiple misdemeanor counts simultaneously.
A FELONY HAZING CONVICTION CAN MEAN 15 YEARS IN PRISON
Benjamin J. Hall knows how Ingham County prosecutors build these cases and where they fall apart.
Here is exactly what the process looks like after a hazing charge at Michigan State University, from first contact with law enforcement through final resolution.
At the same time this criminal process unfolds, MSU’s Office of Student Affairs opens its own student conduct proceeding on an independent timeline.
In MSU hazing cases, the Ingham County Prosecutor typically relies on four arguments. Leadership role if you held any organizational position, the prosecutor will argue you directed or facilitated the hazing. Photographic and video evidence the Pi Alpha Phi case established that photos and videos of unconscious individuals prove knowing and intentional conduct. Witness testimony former fraternity members who cooperate with prosecutors often form the core of the prosecution’s case. Collective pressure as intent the prosecutor will argue that group dynamics constitute an intentional act under MCL 750.411t, targeting every person present. Benjamin J. Hall spent years building cases as a prosecutor and knows exactly where each argument is strongest and where it breaks down.
📷 IMAGE 1 File name: ben-hall-law-east-lansing-hazing-defense-attorney.jpg Alt text: East Lansing criminal defense attorney Benjamin J. Hall advising MSU student on hazing charges under MCL 750.411t
A hazing charge at MSU runs on two simultaneous tracks your criminal case in Ingham County and your student conduct case at Michigan State University and each can end your time at MSU independently of the other.
The criminal record consequence
A conviction under MCL 750.411t creates a permanent criminal record that follows you through every employment background check, graduate school application, and professional licensing process. The one tool that can prevent this outcome is HYTA. Under MCL 762.11, defendants under 26 who complete the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act program do not end up with a public conviction on their record, and the difference between a permanent felony record and no public record often comes down to whether your attorney pursues HYTA at the right stage of your case.
The MSU student conduct consequence
MSU’s Office of Student Affairs runs its own proceedings the moment a hazing incident is reported, with outcomes including suspension or expulsion determined by MSU’s own standards. A not-guilty verdict in Ingham County criminal court does not automatically clear you in the MSU conduct process. Both tracks require strategy waiting to address one while focusing on the other can cost you both your freedom and your enrollment.
Hazing charges at MSU are serious. They are also defensible. The Ingham County Prosecutor must meet a specific legal standard to convict, and there are named, proven strategies for challenging hazing charges under MCL 750.411t.
MCL 750.411t requires the prosecutor to prove that the defendant’s act was intentional, knowing, or reckless. Passive presence at a hazing event is not the same as participation. Benjamin J. Hall examines every detail of what you specifically did not what the group did before accepting the prosecution’s framing of the events.
In the Pi Alpha Phi case, charges against John Pham were dismissed because the evidence did not establish his specific role with sufficient clarity. Not everyone present at a hazing incident bears equal criminal exposure a pledge master who organized the event faces different exposure than a fraternity brother who arrived midway through. The preliminary examination at 54-B District Court is the first opportunity to challenge the sufficiency of evidence against you specifically.
The leadership role argument. The prosecutor assigns elevated culpability to anyone who held an organizational title. Ben Hall’s response: Holding a title is not the same as directing hazing; the prosecutor must prove specific conduct.
The photographic and video evidence argument. Documentation is used to establish knowledge. Ben Hall’s response: The evidence must show what you specifically did, not what others did in the same location.
The collective pressure argument. The prosecutor argues group dynamics constitute an intentional act under MCL 750.411t. Ben Hall’s response: the statute’s mens rea standard applies to each defendant individually. As a former Ingham County prosecutor, Benjamin J. Hall knows which arguments carry the most weight at 54-B District Court and which are most vulnerable to challenge.
Evidence Disappears Fast — Act Now
Benjamin J. Hall spent years as a prosecutor in Ingham County. He knows how hazing cases are built and where they fall apart.
HYTA, the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act under MCL 762.11, is available to defendants in Michigan who are under 26 years old at the time of the offense. If you complete HYTA successfully, no public conviction appears on your criminal record. Most MSU students are under 26, meaning most students charged under MCL 750.411t are eligible to apply. HYTA has been used in real MSU hazing cases; it is not a theoretical option. HYTA is not the same as expungement. Expungement removes a conviction after the fact; a conviction has to happen first. HYTA prevents the public conviction from ever appearing, which matters enormously for employment background checks, professional licensing, and graduate school admissions.
The timing of a HYTA application is not automatic. It must be strategically pursued at the right stage of your case and properly structured at sentencing. Benjamin J. Hall has pursued HYTA for clients at both the 54-B District Court in East Lansing and the Ingham County Circuit Court for MSU students facing hazing charges under MCL 750.411t.
📷 IMAGE 2 File name: hyta-hazing-charge-msu-student-east-lansing.jpg Alt text: MSU student reviewing HYTA eligibility for hazing charge under MCL 762.11 with East Lansing defense attorney Benjamin J. Hall
Hazing charges rarely exist in isolation. MSU students facing charges under MCL 750.411t often have questions about related charges, student conduct proceedings, and the broader range of criminal defense situations that arise on and around campus.
For comprehensive criminal defense representation as an MSU student, the MSU student criminal defense attorney in East Lansing page covers the full scope of charges Ben Hall Law defends on and around campus. Students facing physical altercations will find detailed information about campus assault charges at Michigan State. If you are navigating both a criminal charge and a university disciplinary process, the page on MSU student conduct and criminal charges explains how the two tracks interact and where they diverge. For diversion options, HYTA eligibility for MSU students facing criminal charges covers MCL 762.11 in full.
Facing a hazing charge at MSU is disorienting. You may not have known you were breaking a law, and now that the Ingham County Prosecutor’s Office is involved, your enrollment at Michigan State may be at risk, and you do not know who to call first.
Benjamin J. Hall built his career understanding both sides of a criminal case as a Michigan police officer, then as a prosecutor, and now as a criminal defense attorney in East Lansing. He knows how ELPD and MSUPD investigate hazing incidents, what the Ingham County Prosecutor’s Office needs to prove at 54-B District Court for a conviction under MCL 750.411t, and where hazing cases are most vulnerable to challenge. An MSU student charged with hazing needs a former Ingham County prosecutor in their corner, not a general practice attorney who has never stood in that courtroom.
[DEFENSE TEAM — flip-card format — design component]
[CASE RESULTS — verbalized outcome cards — design component]
[TESTIMONIALS — onclick JS only — no href — design component]
Garrett’s Law is the common name for MCL 750.411t, Michigan’s anti-hazing statute enacted in 2004. It applies to anyone who attends, works at, or volunteers with an educational institution, including Michigan State University, which qualifies under MCL 750.411t(7)(a). In March 2026, the Michigan Supreme Court upheld the law’s constitutionality in the Ethan Cao case. It is actively enforced by the Ingham County Prosecutor’s Office.
The charge level depends on what happened to the person who was hazed. Physical injury results in a misdemeanor under MCL 750.411t(2)(a) up to 93 days in jail and a $1,000 fine. Serious impairment of a body function is a felony under MCL 750.411t(2)(b), up to 5 years in prison. Hazing that results in death is a felony under MCL 750.411t(2)(c), up to 15 years in prison. The outcome, not the intent, determines the tier.
After ELPD or MSU Campus Police investigate, the Ingham County Prosecutor files charges under MCL 750.411t. Your first appearance is at the 54-B District Court in East Lansing for arraignment. A preliminary examination follows, where evidence is reviewed. Felony cases are bound over to Ingham County Circuit Court. At the same time, MSU’s Office of Student Affairs opens a separate conduct proceeding that runs independently of the criminal case.
Yes. A misdemeanor hazing conviction under MCL 750.411t(2)(a) carries up to 93 days in jail. A felony conviction for hazing resulting in serious impairment under MCL 750.411t(2)(b) carries up to 5 years in prison. A felony conviction for hazing resulting in death under MCL 750.411t(2)(c) carries up to 15 years in prison. The specific penalty depends on the outcome of the alleged hazing and the facts of the case.
Yes. Charges can be dismissed at the preliminary examination at the 54-B District Court if the evidence does not meet the sufficiency standard. In the Pi Alpha Phi MSU case, charges against John Pham were dropped because the evidence did not establish his specific role with sufficient clarity. Role differentiation, challenging the mens rea standard under MCL 750.411t, and contesting the causal link between an act and the injury are all paths a defense attorney can pursue.
MCL 750.411t is aggressively enforced in Ingham County following the Pi Alpha Phi case. Consent is not a defense. The Ingham County Prosecutor has direct experience prosecuting hazing charges. An attorney can challenge evidence at the preliminary examination at the 54-B District Court, pursue HYTA under MCL 762.11, and build a role-differentiation defense specific to your conduct. Benjamin J. Hall is a former Ingham County prosecutor who knows how these cases are constructed and how to take them apart.
Call Ben Hall Law Today
ree consultation. Benjamin J. Hall defends MSU students facing hazing charges under MCL 750.411. Call BEN-HALL to get started.
A hazing charge at Michigan State University can derail everything you have worked toward: your degree, your future career, and your record. You should not be navigating MCL 750.411t, the Ingham County Prosecutor’s Office, 54-B District Court, and MSU’s student conduct process alone.
Benjamin J. Hall is a former Michigan police officer and a former prosecutor who knows how hazing investigations are conducted, how the Ingham County Prosecutor builds these cases, and how to challenge them at every stage. Call today. The earlier you have legal representation, the more options remain available.
LEGAL DISCLAIMER: The information on this page is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this page does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Ben Hall Law. Every case is different. Contact Benjamin J. Hall directly to discuss the specific facts of your situation.
