People v. Smelter, Docket No. 100234
| Decision Date | 10 April 1989 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 100234 |
| Citation | 437 N.W.2d 341,175 Mich.App. 153 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Timothy SMELTER, Defendant-Appellant. 175 Mich.App. 153, 437 N.W.2d 341 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[175 MICHAPP 154] Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., John D. O'Hair, Pros. Atty., Timothy A. Baughman, Chief of the Crim. Div., Research, Training and Appeals, and Jeffrey E. Theodore, Asst. Pros. Atty., for the people.
Allen J. Counard, P.C. by Allen J. Counard, Wyandotte, for defendant.
Before CYNAR, P.J., and HOOD and MURPHY, JJ.
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of possessing a "stun gun," M.C.L. Sec. 750.224a; M.S.A. Sec. 28.421(1). Thereafter, defendant was sentenced to probation for one year.
Defendant was stopped in his vehicle by a police officer who was aware that defendant's driving privileges were suspended. The officer placed defendant under arrest for driving on a suspended license. The officer then conducted an inventory search of defendant's vehicle and found the stun gun on the front seat.
Defendant raises several issues on appeal, none of which require reversal. First, we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in qualifying the medical examiner to testify as a medical doctor and as an expert on the effects of electricity on the body. People v. Whitfield, 425 Mich. 116, 122, 388 N.W.2d 206 (1986). The medical examiner testified that he had examined many hundreds of persons [175 MICHAPP 155] who had been electrocuted and that he was familiar with this type of object in his work as chief medical examiner. Moreover, he had either tested or seen the effects of such devices and had examined victims who had been shocked with a stun gun.
Second, the trial court did not err in failing to give defendant's requested jury instructions. Defendant's requested instruction on the constitutional right to bear arms was properly omitted because the instruction was incorrect. Simply, the state has the power to regulate the right to carry arms. People v. Brown, 253 Mich. 537, 540, 235 N.W. 245 (1931). The other two instructions requested by defendant were given in substance by the court. The instructions in their entirety fairly presented the issues to be tried and sufficiently protected defendant's rights. People v. Nix, 165 Mich.App. 501, 504, 419 N.W.2d 7 (1987).
Third, defendant claims that the statute prohibiting the possession of stun guns impermissibly infringes on defendant's right to keep and bear arms for his own defense. We disagree. Const. 1963, art. 1, Sec. 6 provides:
"Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state."
The right to regulate weapons extends not only to the establishment of conditions under which weapons may be possessed, but allows the state to prohibit weapons whose customary employment by individuals is to violate the law. Brown, sup...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robertson v. City and County of Denver
...of a firearm by a convicted felon does not violate federal and state constitutional right to keep and bear arms); People v. Smelter, 175 Mich.App. 153, 437 N.W.2d 341 (1989) (concluding that a statute prohibiting possession of stun guns does not impermissibly infringe upon a person's right ......
-
State v. Brown
...states likewise rejects the notion that the constitutional right to keep and bear arms is absolute. See, e.g., People v. Smelter, 175 Mich.App. 153, 437 N.W.2d 341 (1989); State v. Smoot, 97 Or.App. 255, 775 P.2d 344 (1989); Gardner v. Jenkins, 116 Pa.Commw.Ct. 107, 541 A.2d 406, alloc. den......
-
Kampf v. Kampf
...the state in the exercise of its police power to protect the health, safety, and welfare of Michigan citizens. People v. Smelter, 175 Mich.App. 153, 155-156, 437 N.W.2d 341 (1989). The PPO statute is clearly addressed to protecting the health, safety, and welfare of victims of domestic viol......
-
COALITION FOR RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERS v. City of Ferndale
...and welfare of Michigan citizens." Kampf v. Kampf 237 Mich.App. 377, 383, n. 3, 603 N.W.2d 295 (1999), citing People v. Smelter, 175 Mich.App. 153, 155-156, 437 N.W.2d 341 (1989). Plaintiffs do not argue here, nor did they argue before the trial court, that the Ferndale ordinance is an unre......
-
Nonlethal self-defense, (almost entirely) nonlethal weapons, and the rights to keep and bear arms and defend life.
...MICH. CONST. art. I, [section] 6 ("Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state."). (86.) 437 N.W.2d 341, 342 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989). Compare, for example, Harris v. State, 432 P.2d 929, 930 (Nev. 1967), which rejected a Second Amendment defense to ......