People v. Henderson, 11

Decision Date21 May 1974
Docket NumberNo. 11,11
Citation391 Mich. 612,218 N.W.2d 2
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alex Stamp HENDERSON, Defendant-Appellant. 391 Mich. 612, 218 N.W.2d 2
CourtMichigan Supreme Court

William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty.; Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Dept., Michael R. Mueller, Asst. Pros. Atty., Detroit, for plaintiff-appellee.

Carl Ziemba, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.

Before the entire Bench.

T. G. KAVANAGH, Justice.

Defendant was convicted on August 3, 1971 of carrying a pistol in a motor vehicle contrary to the provisions of M.C.L.A. § 750.227; M.S.A. § 28.424 which reads:

'Sec. 227. Carrying Concealed Weapons--Any person who shall carry a dagger, dirk, stiletto or other dangerous weapon except hunting knives adapted and carried as such, concealed on or about his person, or whether concealed or otherwise in any vehicle operated or occupied by him, except in his dwelling house or place of business or on other land possessed by him; and any person who shall carry a pistol concealed on or about his person, or, whether concealed or otherwise, in any vehicle operated or occupied by him, except in his dwelling house or place of business or on other land possessed by him, without a license to so carry said pistol as provided by law, shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 5 years, or by fine of not more than 2,500 dollars.'

The Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction, and on appeal here he makes three assertions of error:

1) There was no proof that the defendant had no license to carry the weapon.

2) There was neither evidence that established possession of the weapon in the defendant, nor proof of his intent to carry it in the car.

3) The judge impinged upon the jury's prerogative by virtually directing a verdict of guilty by saying in his charge:

'Now this is a very simple issue in this case. Did the defendant have the gun as stated by the People's witness, in the car? If you find that he had this gun in the car, as testified to by the People, and you believe that beyond any reasonable doubt, it makes no difference whether the gun was loaded or unloaded, whether he was the owner or the driver of the car, if you believe the People's testimony beyond a reasonable doubt, it is your duty, ladies and gentlemen, to convict the Defendant of the charge contained in this Information.'

Defendant argues that the statute defined a crime having two elements: 1) the carrying of the pistol and 2) the lack of license so to carry. He maintains that since this record contains no proof touching on the lack of license, the conviction cannot stand.

The plaintiff agrees that the statute establishes two elements of the crime, but asserts that the state is absolved from proving the lack of a license by virtue of M.C.L.A. § 776.20 M.S.A. § 28.1274(1) which reads:

'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 or the violation.'

It is true that we have heretofore regarded M.C.L.A. § 750.227; M.S.A. § 28.424, Supra, as defining a crime having two elements. People v. Gould, 384 Mich. 71, 179 N.W.2d 617 (1970); People v. Schrader, 10 Mich.App. 211, 159 N.W.2d 147 (1968).

On reconsideration however, we are persuaded that the crime defined by M.C.L.A. § 750.227; M.S.A. § 28.424 as it concerns this case, has but one element. We are satisfied that the operative words of the statute as they pertain to this defendant are:

'* * * any person who shall carry a pistol * * * in any vehicle operated or occupied by him * * * shall be guilty of a felony.'

The language in the statute 'without a license to so carry said pistol as provided by law' does not add an element to the crime, but...

To continue reading

Request your trial
43 cases
  • People v. Magnant
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • 30 Julio 2021
    ...Indeed, we have found that a similar licensure requirement was not even an element of a statutory offense. See People v. Henderson , 391 Mich. 612, 616, 218 N.W.2d 2 (1974).5 Further, as the United States Supreme Court has explained, the surest indicator that criminal intent is required is ......
  • People v. Pegenau
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • 31 Agosto 1994
    ...n. 3, 272 N.W.2d 147.] The statute here is analogous to the concealed weapon statute interpreted by this Court in People v. Henderson, 391 Mich. 612, 218 N.W.2d 2 (1974). The statutory provisions at issue there, M.C.L. § 750.227; M.S.A. § 28.424 and M.C.L. § 776.20; M.S.A. § 28.1274(1), pro......
  • People v. Robar, 335377
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • 24 Agosto 2017
    ...... at 292, 523 N.W.2d 325. 11 In Hartuniewicz , 294 Mich.App. at 245–246, 816 N.W.2d 442, this Court further explained: Before Pegenau , this Court repeatedly considered ...Dempster , 396 Mich. 700, 242 N.W.2d 381 (1976), and People v. Henderson , 391 Mich. 612, 218 N.W.2d 2 (1974), Justice MALLETT wrote that the Michigan Supreme Court "has interpreted similar statutory provisions as ......
  • State, Michigan Dept. of Social Services v. Emmanuel Baptist Preschool
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • 9 Abril 1990
    ...... 11 It is the state's burden to prove that there are no alternative, less drastic [434 Mich. 396] ... that was also inherent in the term "mental anguish" (as defined by the Court of Appeals) in People v. Petrella, 424 Mich. 221, 263, 380 N.W.2d 11 (1985), citing 124 Mich.App. 745, 763, 336 N.W.2d ...Henderson, 391 Mich. 612, 616, 218 N.W.2d 2 (1974). In this case, the church contends that "submitting to ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT