People v. Kelsch

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Kelsch

167 N.W.2d 777, 16 Mich. App. 244, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1357

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 27, 1969

DocketDocket 4,683

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 167 N.W.2d 777 (People v. Kelsch) 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. Kelsch, 167 N.W.2d 777, 16 Mich. App. 244, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1357 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant appeals from a conviction by a jury of carrying a concealed pistol without a license. CL 1948, § 750.227 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.424). * To establish the corpus delicti of this felony, the prosecutor must prove not only that the defendant carried a concealed pistol, but also that he had no license to do so. People v. Autry (1967), 7 Mich App 480, 483. It is well settled in this state that the corpus delicti of a crime, or any essential element of it, cannot be established solely by the extrajudicial statements of the accused. People v. Zwierkowski (1962), 368 Mich 56; People v. Asta (1953), 337 Mich 590, 613. The only testimony offered as to licensing in this case was that of a police officer that defendant admitted the gun was his and he had no license. Defendant objected that this was not sufficient proof, but the trial judge overruled the objection. See People v. White (1936), 276 Mich 29; People v. Lee (1925), 231 Mich 607.

Reversed and remanded for new trial.

*

This conviction precedes the effective date of PA 1968, No 299 being CL 1948, § 776.20 '[Stat Ann 1969 Cnm Supp § 28.1274(1)], which provides: “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 sueh act shall be upon the defendant but this does not shift the burden of proof for the violation.”

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant appeals from a conviction by a jury of carrying a concealed pistol without a license. CL 1948, § 750.227 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.424). * To establish the corpus delicti of this felony, the prosecutor must prove not only that the defendant carried a concealed pistol, but also that he had no license to do so. People v. Autry (1967), 7 Mich App 480, 483. It is well settled in this state that the corpus delicti of a crime, or any essential element of it, cannot be established solely by the extrajudicial statements of the accused. People v. Zwierkowski (1962), 368 Mich 56; People v. Asta (1953), 337 Mich 590, 613. The only testimony offered as to licensing in this case was that of a police officer that defendant admitted the gun was his and he had no license. Defendant objected that this was not sufficient proof, but the trial judge overruled the objection. See People v. White (1936), 276 Mich 29; People v. Lee (1925), 231 Mich 607.

Reversed and remanded for new trial.

*

This conviction precedes the effective date of PA 1968, No 299 being CL 1948, § 776.20 '[Stat Ann 1969 Cnm Supp § 28.1274(1)], which provides: “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 sueh act shall be upon the defendant but this does not shift the burden of proof for the violation.”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 N.W.2d 777, 16 Mich. App. 244, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1357, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-kelsch-michctapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack