Opinion
Docket No. 4,683.
Decided February 27, 1969.
Appeal from Macomb, Frank E. Jeannette, J. Submitted Division 2 January 7, 1969, at Detroit. (Docket No. 4,683.) Decided February 27, 1969.
Michael Leo Kelsch was convicted of carrying a concealed pistol without a license. Defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, George N. Parris, Prosecuting Attorney, Thaddeus F. Hamera, Chief Appellate Lawyer, and Stephen F. Osinski, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Gruenburg, Robinson Bogus, for defendant on appeal.
BEFORE: LESINSKI C.J., and J.H. GILLIS and T.M. BURNS, JJ.
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.
This conviction precedes the effective date of PA 1968, No 299 being CL 1948, § 776.20 [Stat Ann 1969 Cum 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 such act shall be upon the defendant but this does not shift the burden of proof for the violation."
Reversed and remanded for new trial.