-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION February 19, 2015 9:10 a.m.

V No. 318051 Allegan Circuit Court JASON ERIC TRIPLETT, LC No. 12-018016-FH

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: B ECKERING , P.J., and B ORRELLO and G LEICHER , JJ.

P ER C URIAM

. During a late-night altercation with two men who intervened af ter witnessing defendant’s apparent assault of his wife, defendant pulled out a knife. Al though defendant was acquitted of felonious assault against these Good Samaritans on self-defense grounds, a jury convicted him of domestic assault, MCL 750.81(2), and carrying a concealed weapo n (CCW), MCL 750.227. Defendant contends that his CCW c onviction must be reversed bec ause the trial court affirmatively instructed the jur y that the defense did not appl y. Self-defense is not an available defense to a CCW charge. We therefore affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

On the evening of the offense, defendant and his wife had atte nded at a party. They agree that the wife was irate when defendant forced her to return hom e. The wife was extremely intoxicated and left the couple’s home on foot to return to the party. Shortly thereafter, defendant followed her in a vehic le. Defendant and his wife ad mitted that they engaged in a shoving match in the roadway when the wife refused to enter def endant’s vehicle. Two men driving down the road witnessed this scuffle and, believing def endant was the aggressor, stopped to assist the wife. They offered the wife a ride and she enter ed their vehicle. Defendant attempted to explain the situati on and remove his wife from the car, but one of the men stopped him. Defendant and the man then began to struggle. Defendant asserted that the man tried to choke him and so he pulled out a knife to protect himself. He described the weapon as a utility knife with a two-inch blade. Defendant’s wife corroborated his version of events. The jury apparently accepted defendant’s claim that he wielded the knife to protect himself from the man who believed he was intervening t o protect a woman from assault . But the jury did not accept defendant’s explanation for the domestic assault and CCW charge s.-2- II. ANALYSIS

Defendant contends that the tria l court erroneou sly instructedthe jury that self-defense is not a defense against a CCW charge. Specifically, after instru cting the jury on the elements of the CCW offense, the court described, “It does not matter if th e defendant was carrying a weapon for his own protection. Self defense is not a defense to the c harge of carrying a concealed weapon.” This instruction was c onsistent with M Crim JI 11.8. The court immediately informed the jury that it could consider s elf-defense and defense of oth ers in relation to the felonious assault charges.

Self-defense is an affirmative defense that admits but excuses the commission of a criminal offense. People v Dupree , 486 Mich 693, 704 n 11; 788 NW2d 399 (2010). Defendant invites us to extend the holdings in two recent Michigan Suprem e Court cases regarding the use of self-defense. In Dupree , the Supreme Court held that common-law self-defense may be re lied upon to justify a felon-in-posse ssion-of-a-firearm offense. Id. at 696. In People v Moreno , 491 Mich 38; 814 NW2d 624 (2012), the Court concluded that a person may lawfully resist an illegal arrest, i.e. use self-defense against law enforcement.

However, this Court previously has ruled that self-defense is n ot a defense to CCW. People v Townsel , 13 Mich App 600, 601; 164 NW2d 776 (1968). And in People v HernandezGarcia , 477 Mich 1039, 1039-1040; 728 NW2d 406 (2007), the Supreme Co urt similarly ruled that “momentary innocent possession of a concealed weapon is no t a defense” to a CCW charge. The Court reasoned that because the mens rea requirement of MCL 750.227 does “not extend to the defendant’s purpose for carrying the concealed weapon,” a d efendant’s purpose for concealing a weapon is irrelevant and cannot be a defense again st CCW. Id. at 1040 n 1. This rationale extends to the application of self-defense to a CCW c harge. Because a defendant’s purpose for concealing a weapon cannot be a defense against CCW , then it would be no defense if a defendant concealed a wea pon for the purpose of self-defen se.

Given this Court’s decision in Townsel and the Supreme Court’s analysis in Hernandez

Garcia , we decline defendant’s invitation to extend Dupree and Moreno in the current case. Therefore, we cannot fault the tr ial court for its instruction.

Defendant also contends that de fense counsel was ineffective f or failing to object to the trial court’s instruction. Counsel cannot be deemed ineffectiv e for failing to raise a novel legal argument, People v Reed , 453 Mich 685, 695; 556 NW2d 858 (1996), or failing to make a futile objection. People v Chambers , 277 Mich App 1, 11; 742 NW2d 610 (2007).

We affirm.

/s/ Jane M. Beckering /s/ Stephen L. Borrello /s/ Elizabeth L. Gleicher