People v. Gray, Docket No. 9443
| Decision Date | 24 November 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,Docket No. 9443,2 |
| Citation | 194 N.W.2d 545,37 Mich.App. 189 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leray GRAY, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Carl L. Bekofske, Flint, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Robert F. Leonard, Pros. Atty., Donald A. Kuebler, Chief Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before DANHOF, P.J., and BRONSON and TARGONSKI, * JJ.
After a jury trial the defendant was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon. M.C.L.A. § 750.227 (Stat.Ann.1962 Rev. § 28.424). He now appeals.
On September 16, 1969, the defendant was stopped by two police officers because he was driving a car that did not have a rear license-plate light. The officers examined the defendant's driver's license and shined a flashlight into the car. The butt of a revolver was observed sticking out from under the driver's seat.
The defendant contends that it was error to admit into evidence a letter from the director of the Michigan State Police. The letter stated that there was no record that a license to carry a concealed weapon had been issued to the defendant.
We find it unnecessary to pass upon this contention. The defendant has never contended that he was licensed to carry a concealed weapon. At the trial he based his defense solely on the contention that he was not aware that the gun was in his car. The question of whether a defendant has been licensed must be put in issue by the defendant. M.C.L.A. § 776.20 (Stat.Ann.1971 Cum.Supp. § 28.1274(1)) provides:
'In any prosecution for the violation of any acts of the state relative to use, licensing and possession of pistols or firearms, the burden of establishing any exception, excuse, proviso or exemption contained in any such act shall be upon the defendant but this does not shift the burden of proof for the violation.'
Since the issue was never raised by the defendant, the letter is merely superfluous and its admission could not be reversible error.
The defendant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to grant his motion to suppress the gun. The trial court found that the police officers stopped the defendant for an actual violation and not as a pretext for an illegal search, and that the revolver was in plain view of the police officer who was standing where he had a right to be. These findings are supported by the record. Therefore, the search and seizure was valid. People v. Beauregard (1970), 21 Mich.App. 224, 175 N.W.2d 301; People v. Pruitt (1970), 28 Mich.App. 270, 184 N.W.2d 292.
The defendant contends that he was erroneously...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ensor v. State
...314 So.2d 778 (Fla.1975); State v. Day, 301 So.2d 469 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), cert. denied, 312 So.2d 748 (Fla.1975); People v. Gray, 37 Mich.App. 189, 194 N.W.2d 545 (1971).3 See Driggers v. State, 123 Ala. 46, 26 So. 512 (1899) (pistol partially in defendant's pocket and covered with hand); ......
-
People v. Rivers
...People v. Tisi, 384 Mich. 214, 18 N.W.2d 801 (1970); People v. James, 36 Mich.App. 550, 194 N.W.2d 57 (1971); People v. Gary, 37 Mich.App. 189, 194 N.W.2d 545 (1971). These cases, while helpful, are not directly on point, as they involve evidence coming into the view of an officer after he ......
-
People v. Schrantz, Docket No. 13177
...officers who had a legal right to be where they were. People v. Bennett, 46 Mich.App. 598, 208 N.W.2d 624 (1973); People v. Gray, 37 Mich.App. 189, 194 N.W.2d 545 (1971). We attach no significance to the fact that the officers did not take defendant to a medical facility after they had arre......
-
People v. Kremko
...they were in plain view of officer Phillips who was in a place he had a legal right to be. People v. Whalen, Supra; People v. Gray, 37 Mich.App. 189, 194 N.W.2d 545 (1971), leave den., 388 Mich. 802 (1972). The butt of the shotgun was seen by officer Phillips through the trunk opening. He t......