People v. Humphrey
312 Mich. App. 309
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- On January 7, 2012, Detroit police stopped and chased Christopher Humphrey, frisked him, and found a handgun concealed in his inner pants; he had no CPL.
- Michigan State Police forensic testing reported the seized pistol would not function as received due to a missing firing pin.
- Humphrey was charged with carrying a concealed weapon (CCW), MCL 750.227(2).
- Humphrey moved to dismiss, arguing the gun was inoperable and therefore not a "firearm" under the CCW statute—an affirmative defense under prior Court of Appeals precedent.
- The trial court granted the motion, relying on pre-Peals Court of Appeals authority and expressing uncertainty whether Michigan Supreme Court precedent on operability applied to CCW.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that People v Peals controls: operability is not required to show a weapon is a "firearm" under Chapter XXXVII, so inoperability is not a valid CCW defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether operability is an element or affirmative defense for CCW under Chapter XXXVII | Operability is not required; Peals interprets "firearm" by design/construction regardless of operability | The gun was inoperable (missing firing pin); prior Court of Appeals decisions allowed inoperability as an affirmative defense to CCW | Operability is not relevant; Peals controls and overruled Gardner—an inoperable pistol is still a "firearm" for CCW |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Peals, 476 Mich 636 (Mich. 2006) (statutory definition of "firearm" concerns design/construction, not operability)
- People v Brown, 249 Mich App 382 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001) (discusses differing meanings of "firearm" across Chapter XXXVII offenses)
- People v Gardner, 194 Mich App 652 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992) (held earlier that operability could be an affirmative defense to CCW)