878 N.W.2d 811
Mich.2016Background
- Defendant was arrested after a roadside altercation in which he displayed a two‑inch utility knife while attempting to retrieve his intoxicated wife from a car; he admitted using the knife but claimed self‑defense.
- Charged with felonious assault, carrying a concealed weapon (CCW) under MCL 750.227(1) for an “other dangerous weapon,” and domestic violence; acquitted of assault, convicted of CCW and domestic violence.
- Trial court instructed jury that self‑defense applied to the assault charge but not to the CCW charge.
- Court of Appeals affirmed, holding self‑defense is not a defense to CCW because defendant’s purpose for concealing the weapon is irrelevant.
- Michigan Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the common‑law affirmative defense of self‑defense is available to a defendant charged under MCL 750.227(1) when the instrument is an “other dangerous weapon” only because it was used as a weapon.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether common‑law self‑defense is available to a CCW charge under MCL 750.227(1) when the concealed item is an “other dangerous weapon” only because it was used as a weapon | Self‑defense unavailable; purpose for carrying is irrelevant to CCW | Self‑defense available to justify carrying when the instrument is used as a weapon | Self‑defense is available in these circumstances; trial court erred by barring the defense |
| Whether the CCW statute’s silence evidences legislative abrogation of self‑defense | Statute should be read to preclude self‑defense absent explicit language | Silence does not show abrogation; common‑law defense survives absent clear contrary indication | Silence insufficient; absent clear legislative abrogation, self‑defense remains available |
| Whether an instrument qualifies as an “other dangerous weapon” under MCL 750.227(1) | Carrying any concealed instrument can violate CCW regardless of purpose | Instrument is an “other dangerous weapon” only if used as or carried for use as a weapon | For non‑per se instruments, conviction requires proof of use or purpose to use as a weapon |
| Whether instructional error was prejudicial | Excluding self‑defense on CCW did not affect verdict | Exclusion was plain error affecting substantial rights | Exclusion was plain error; conviction vacated and case remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Goolsby, 284 Mich 375 (1938) (defines “other dangerous weapon” as items dangerous only when used as weapons)
- People v Vaines, 310 Mich 500 (1945) (extends Goolsby definition to CCW statute; requires proof of use or purpose to use for non‑per se instruments)
- People v Dupree, 486 Mich 693 (2010) (holds self‑defense is an available affirmative defense to felon‑in‑possession when supported by evidence and statute is silent)
- People v Hernandez‑Garcia, 477 Mich 1039 (2007) (rejects momentary innocent possession defense under a related CCW subsection; not controlling here)
- People v Townsel, 13 Mich App 600 (1968) (held carrying for “self‑protection” is not a defense; distinguishable on facts)
- People v Triplett, 309 Mich App 252 (2015) (Court of Appeals decision reviewed in this appeal)