Case Name: PEOPLE v. CLARK
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1970-06-22
Citations: 24 Mich. App. 440
Docket Number: Docket No. 6,515
Parties: PEOPLE v. CLARK
Judges: Before: Lesinski, C. J., and Quinn and O’Hara, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 24
Pages: 440–446

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v. CLARK
Opinion of the Court
1. Searches and Seizures — Reasonableness—Motion to Suppress —Weapons—Concealed Weapons.
Denial of defendant’s motion, made prior to trial, to suppress a gun was proper as the search was a reasonable one where the activities of defendant and two others in and outside of a store aroused the suspicions of a store clerk who telephoned police and requested that a patrol car be sent to the store located in a neighborhood where there had been a rash of holdups; police officers arrived while defendant and the other two were still in the store; the clerk told the poliee he called them because he was afraid the three persons were going to hold him up; defendant had his hand in his pocket, as he had during the time he was in the store, and, when one of the policemen requested defendant to take his hand out of his pocket, he refused and refused to talk with the officer; and, in removing defendant from the store an altercation ensued, defendant was handcuffed and taken to the police station where the gun was found in his pocket.
2. Weapons — Concealed Weapons — Evidence — Irrelevant — Evidence.
Adduction of proof that a gun was operational and loaded was not reversible error where defendant was charged with carrying a concealed weapon without a license although such proof was irrelevant to that offense (MCLA §§ 750.227, 769.26).
3. Weapons — Concealed Weapons — Evidence—Burden of Proof.
Prosecution need not prove that defendant did not have a license to carry the weapon in any county of the state where defendant was charged with carrying a concealed weapon without a license (MCLA § 750.227).
References for Points in Headnotes
[1, 4] 5 Am Jur 2d, Arrest § 40.
[2, 3] 56 Am Jur, Weapons §9 et seq.
Dissenting Opinion
Lesinski
4. Searches and Seizures — Motion to Suppress — Hearing—Evidence.
A defendant is entitled to a full evidentiary hearing where he may present all material and relevant evidence available to him on the issue of a reasonable search and seizure without surrendering such other constitutional rights as the right not to talce the stand at the trial in chief where he was charged with carrying a concealed weapon without a license and his motion to exclude the weapon from evidence as the product of an unreasonable police search and seizure was made before trial.
Appeal from Recorder’s Court of Detroit, Thomas L. Poindexter, J.
Submitted Division 1 April 15, 1970, at Detroit.
(Docket No. 6,515.)
Decided June 22, 1970.
Curtis Saul Clark was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon. Defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Gahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Department, and Thomas P. Smith, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Robert F. Mitchell, Jr., for defendant on appeal.
Before: Lesinski, C. J., and Quinn and O’Hara, JJ.
Dormer Supreme Court Justice, sitting on the Court .of Appeals by assignment pursuant to Const 1963, art 6, § 23 as amended in 1968.

Opinion:
Quinn, J.
Defendant was tried by a jury for carrying a concealed weapon contrary to CL 1948, § 750.227 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.424) and he was convicted. His appeal raises several issues, the first of which relates to the admissibility of the weapon in evidence. Prior to trial, defendant moved to suppress the weapon and the motion was denied.
Although the trial court denied the motion to suppress on the basis of Const 1963, art 1, § 11, and defendant contends here that under Mapp v. Ohio (1961), 367 US 643 (81 S Ct 1684, 6 L Ed 2d 1081, 84 ALR2d 933), this section of the state constitution is unconstitutional under the United States Constitution, the facts of this case obviate decision on this issue.
The activities of three young men, including defendant, in and outside of a grocery store aroused the suspicions of a store clerk to the extent that the clerk telephoned police headquarters and requested that a patrol car be sent to the store. Notified by radio, four police officers arrived while defendant and the other two were still in the store. Defendant had his hand in his pocket, as he had had during the time he was in the store. The clerk told the police that he called them because he was afraid the three young men were going to hold him up. There had been a rash of holdups in the neighborhood.
One of the policemen requested defendant to take his hand out of his pocket. Defendant refused to do so and refused to talk with the officer. In removing defendant from the store, an altercation ensued, defendant was handcuffed and taken to the police station where the gun was found in his pocket.
Under Terry v. Ohio (1968), 392 US 1 (88 S Ct 1968, 20 L Ed 2d 889), this was a reasonable search, and even under Mapp, supra, the product of a reasonable search is admissible. Denial of the motion to suppress was proper.
Defendant claims that the trial judge interjected himself into the proceedings by questioning wit nesses to the extent of exhibiting partiality to the prosecution, thus prejudicing defendant's right to a fair trial. This claim is not supported by the record before us.
Defendant alleges that in final argument the prosecuting attorney alluded to the fact that no contrary evidence was presented by defendant, and that this was prejudicial error. Final arguments were not recorded and we have no way to determine if such a comment was made.
The next error asserted by defendant is that prejudicial error occurred when the prosecution exceeded the quantum of proof required to establish the offense with which defendant was charged. This assertion relates to proof that the weapon was operational and loaded. Such proof was irrelevant to the offense with which defendant was charged but its adduction was not reversible error. CL 1948, § 769.26 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1096).
Defendant's final allegation of error, namely: that the prosecution must prove that defendant did not have a license to carry the weapon in any county of the state is unfounded. People v. Ramos (1969), 17 Mich App 515.
Affirmed.
O'Hara, J., concurred.