After he was pulled over for running a red light and
was determined to be intoxicated, the defendant was charged with carrying a
concealed weapon (CCW) (in an automobile), second-offense operating while
intoxicated (OWI), and possession of a firearm while under the influence. His concealed pistol license (CPL) had
previously been revoked because of an OWI, but he asserted that he did not receive
notice of the revocation. The trial
court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the CCW charge, holding that
the prosecution failed to produce evidence that “conclusively demonstrates”
that the defendant received notice that his CPL was revoked, as required by MCL
28.428. The court held that the evidence of “verbal”
notice – a LEIN entry – was insufficient. The Court of Appeals reversed the
trial court in a published opinion, holding that the requirement that CPL
holders receive notice if their CPL is suspended or revoked, MCL 28.428, only
shields persons from criminal liability under that statute, not the CCW
statute. The Court of Appeals also
determined that, regardless, the trial court erred in holding that “verbal”
notice is insufficient under MCL 28.428 and that the uncontested evidence
showed that the defendant also at least received written notice that his CPL
was suspended. The Supreme Court has
ordered oral argument on the application to address: (1)
whether in a prosecution for carrying a concealed weapon under MCL 750.227(2),
the prosecutor must establish that the defendant had notice under
MCL 28.428 that his concealed pistol license had been suspended or
revoked; and (2) whether the Court of Appeals erred in determining that if notice
is required, the evidence demonstrated that the defendant was served with
adequate notice that he could not legally possess a concealed pistol.