Court Opinion

ID: 9733692
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:14:24.228219+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:43.634160
License: Public Domain

Fitzgerald, J.
(dissenting in part). I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that operability is not an element of felony-firearm for the reasons stated in People v Huizenga, 176 Mich App 800; 439 NW2d 922 (1989) (a pistol as defined under the concealed weapons statute must be operable), and People v Sanchez, 98 Mich App 562, 567; 296 NW2d 312 (1980), (M. F. Cavanagh, J., dissenting). The testimony established that the firearm which defendant carried had a broken hammer which could not be readily repaired. Defendant’s conviction for felony-firearm should be reversed.