People v. Edwards

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Edwards

195 N.W.2d 35, 37 Mich. App. 490, 1972 Mich. App. LEXIS 1719

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 17, 1972

DocketDocket 9079

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 195 N.W.2d 35 (People v. Edwards) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Edwards, 195 N.W.2d 35, 37 Mich. App. 490, 1972 Mich. App. LEXIS 1719 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

*491 Danhof, P. J.

The defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of illegal possession of narcotics in violation of MCLA 335.153; MSA 18.1123. He now appeals. We reverse because the people failed to prove that the defendant did not have a license to possess narcotics.

This case is controlled by the Supreme Court’s decision in People v Rios, 386 Mich 172 (1971). In Rios the Supreme Court held that a defendant’s lack of a license was an essential element of the offense of sale of narcotics. The only difference between Rios and this case is that Rios involved a prosecution for sale of narcotics under MCLA 335.152; MSA 18.1122, and this case involves the prosecution for possession of narcotics under MCLA 335.153; MSA 18.1123. However, we do not regard this as a viable distinction. In pertinent part the wording of the statutes is identical. MCLA 335.152; MSA 18.1122 provides:

“Any person not having a license under the provisions of Act No. 343 of the Public Acts of 1937, as amended, being sections 335.51 to 335.78, inclusive, of the Compiled Laws of 1948, who shall sell, manufacture, produce, administer, dispense or prescribe any narcotic drug shall be deemed guilty of a felony.”

MCLA 335.153; MSA 18.1123 provides:

“Any person not having a license as required under the provisions of Act No. 343 of the Public Acts of 1937, as amended, being sections 335.51 to 335.78, inclusive, of the Compiled Laws of 1948, who shall possess or have under his or her control any narcotic drug shall be deemed guilty of a felony.”

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

All concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*491 Danhof, P. J.

The defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of illegal possession of narcotics in violation of MCLA 335.153; MSA 18.1123. He now appeals. We reverse because the people failed to prove that the defendant did not have a license to possess narcotics.

This case is controlled by the Supreme Court’s decision in People v Rios, 386 Mich 172 (1971). In Rios the Supreme Court held that a defendant’s lack of a license was an essential element of the offense of sale of narcotics. The only difference between Rios and this case is that Rios involved a prosecution for sale of narcotics under MCLA 335.152; MSA 18.1122, and this case involves the prosecution for possession of narcotics under MCLA 335.153; MSA 18.1123. However, we do not regard this as a viable distinction. In pertinent part the wording of the statutes is identical. MCLA 335.152; MSA 18.1122 provides:

“Any person not having a license under the provisions of Act No. 343 of the Public Acts of 1937, as amended, being sections 335.51 to 335.78, inclusive, of the Compiled Laws of 1948, who shall sell, manufacture, produce, administer, dispense or prescribe any narcotic drug shall be deemed guilty of a felony.”

MCLA 335.153; MSA 18.1123 provides:

“Any person not having a license as required under the provisions of Act No. 343 of the Public Acts of 1937, as amended, being sections 335.51 to 335.78, inclusive, of the Compiled Laws of 1948, who shall possess or have under his or her control any narcotic drug shall be deemed guilty of a felony.”

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

All concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

195 N.W.2d 35, 37 Mich. App. 490, 1972 Mich. App. LEXIS 1719, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-edwards-michctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack