Preview:

Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Opinion
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v DAVID MICHAEL PERKINS, Defendant-Appellant. _______________________________ BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH PER CURIAM

Chief Justice:

Justices:

Clifford W. Taylor

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman

FILED JULY 29, 2005

No. 126727

We granted leave in this case to consider two issues involving MCL 750.224f, which sets forth restrictions

concerning the possession1 of firearms by persons having been convicted of a felony. The first is whether larceny

from the person is a "specified felony" for the purposes of MCL 750.224f(6)(i), thus in We subjecting order conclude to defendant regain his to more to the

stringent possess a

requirements firearm.

right from

that

larceny

Although we mention only possession in this opinion, MCL 750.224f does not pertain only to the possession of firearms, but also to the use, transportation, sale, purchase, carrying, shipping, receiving, or distribution of firearms.

1

person involves a substantial risk that force will be used during its commission and, therefore, hold that it is a specified felony. The second issue is whether the prosecution is always required to show that a person convicted of a specified felony has not had his or her right to possess a firearm restored pursuant to MCL 750.224(2)(b), or whether the

prosecution's burden to disprove restoration only arises if the defendant first introduces evidence that the

defendant's right to possess a firearm has been restored. We conclude, on the basis of MCL 776.20 and People v

Henderson, 391 Mich 612, 616; 218 NW2d 2 (1974), that the defendant has the burden of producing evidence to establish that his or her Once right the to possess a firearm this has burden been of

restored.

defendant

meets

production, the prosecution bears the burden of persuasion beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, defendant failed

to produce evidence that his firearm rights were restored, and the prosecution thus was not required to prove the lack of restoration. Court of Appeals. I. FACTS
AND

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In 1977, defendant David M. Perkins was convicted of the felony offense of larceny from the person in violation of MCL 750.357. In 2001, Perkins 2
was involved in an

altercation where he pointed a gun at another person, and, in the subsequent struggle, the gun discharged. As a

result, Perkins was charged with, among other things,2 being a felon in possession of a firearm (felon in possession) in violation of MCL 750.224f(2). This statute makes it a

crime for a person who has been convicted of a "specified felony"-one that either involves a substantial risk of, or contains as an element the threatened, attempted, or actual use of, physical force against a person or property

Download PEOPLE OF MI V DAVID PERKINS.pdf

Michigan Law