Opinion ID: 848612
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: people v pegenau

Text: The prosecution relies on People v. Pegenau [17] to support its argument. This reliance is misplaced. In Pegenau, the defendant was charged with unlawful possession of Xanax and Valium pursuant to MCL 333.7403(1). [18] People v. Pegenau, 447 Mich. 278, 281, 523 N.W.2d 325 (1994). The only question at trial was whether the defendant had a valid prescription, which would exclude him from prosecution under the language of MCL 333.7403 and MCL 333.7531. [19] Pegenau, supra at 282, 523 N.W.2d 325. This Court held that the burden of proof regarding the existence of a valid prescription was on the defendant. Pegenau is distinguishable from the present case because MCL 333.7403 expressly uses a term creating an exception. In fact, MCL 333.7403 uses the term unless. As discussed above, unless is defined as 1. except under the circumstances that . . . 2. except; but; save[.] Random House Webster's College Dictionary (2001). Because an exception is specifically created, the defendant bears the burden of production under MCL 333.7531. In contrast, MCL 750.224f(2) does not provide an exception or exemption to felon-in-possession prosecutions. The Legislature did not use a term that would create an exception. It used the inclusive phrase until all. Therefore, the subsections are elements of the crime rather than exceptions, and MCL 776.20 does not apply. Pegenau is inapplicable and is in clear contrast to this case. Therefore, I find it of no support to the prosecution's argument.