Court Opinion

ID: 9591854
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:08:21.121853+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:51.779670
License: Public Domain

J. H. Gillis, P. J.
(concurring). I agree with the first three paragraphs of my colleague’s opinion.
In summation, People v Sinclair, 387 Mich 91 (1972), decided only the Sinclair case. It is not stare decisis and is not binding on this Court. The Supreme Court order granting a writ of habeas corpus referred to in the majority opinion is not authority for reversal.
However, the trial judge, in his examination of the defendant at the time he accepted the plea, made the following statement to the defendant:
"The Court: There is one further point in terms of the ingredients of the crime. You may have heard the words without having a license. I would not want you to *89think the people would have to come in and prove that you didn’t have a license; that would be your burden. I want you to know about it because the Legislature has a statute that if you are licensed to possess narcotics and you did that, you wouldn’t be guilty to [sic] it; do you understand that?
"Defendant Camion: Yes, sir.”
This was error which requires reversal.
In fairness to the trial court, it should be pointed out that at the time the plea was taken that statement of the law was in accordance with the decisions of this Court. People v Thomas, 26 Mich App 160 (1970); People v Rios, 27 Mich App 54 (1970). Subsequently, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Rios case, 386 Mich 172 (1971), holding that the burden of proof as to the defendant’s lack of license to sell narcotics was upon the people.
I, therefore, concur in the reversal of this conviction. I would, however, remand it to the trial court for retrial.