Careers

Experiences

Industries

Offices

Our Firm

Pages

Our People

Updates

Practices

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is a corporate law firm with over 230 attorneys serving clients in nine offices throughout Michigan. Among the largest law firms in Michigan, Warner works in virtually all areas of business law.

Michigan Law Firm - Warner Norcross + Judd LLP

The Michigan Supreme Court, in <em><a href="http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/OPINIONS/FINAL/SCT/20160328_S151434_41_01_Triplett-OP.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">People v. Triplett, No. 151434</a></em>, held that the common-law affirmative defense of self-defense is available to a defendant charged with carrying a concealed weapon (“CCW”), MCL 750.227, when the concealed weapon is an “other dangerous weapon.”  In its decision, the Court found that there is no “clear indication” that the Legislature abrogated or modified common-law self-defense in the CCW statute, such that defendant would be precluded from asserting it to justify his actions.

contentpilot/introduction

MCL 750.227(1) provides: “A person shall not carry a dagger, dirk, stiletto, a double-edged nonfolding stabbing instrument of any length, or any <em>other dangerous weapon</em>, except a hunting knife adapted and carried as such, concealed on or about his or her person . . . .”&nbsp; Defendant was charged with CCW for carrying an “other dangerous weapon” when he used a concealed utility knife as a weapon.&nbsp; The case was tried to a jury during which the trial court instructed the jury that self-defense was not an available defense to the CCW charge. The jury ultimately convicted defendant of CCW and defendant appealed.&nbsp; The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that self-defense is not a defense to a CCW charge because a defendant’s purpose for concealing a weapon is irrelevant, and therefore, a self-defense purpose for using the weapon is not a defense to a CCW charge.

core/paragraph

The Michigan Supreme Court disagreed.&nbsp; It found that there is no “clear indication” that the Legislature abrogated or modified the common-law affirmative defense of self-defense in the CCW statute, such that defendant would be precluded from asserting it to justify his actions. &nbsp;Moreover, the Court reasoned that under MCL 750.227(1), an instrument becomes an “other dangerous weapon” only when a defendant in fact uses it as a weapon. &nbsp;Thus, a defendant’s use or purpose for carrying an “other dangerous weapon” is always relevant to determining a defendant’s guilt under MCL 750.227(1).&nbsp; Therefore, the trial court’s instruction that the affirmative defense of self-defense was not available to defendant was plain error.

Partner

Madelaine C. Lane

Labor and Employment

Self-defense is still a valid affirmative defense to a charge of carrying a concealed weapon

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is responsible for the contents of our advertising and this website. Please read our full <a href="/privacy-policy/" aria-label="see privacy policy">privacy policy</a> available on our website. If you have any questions or comments about our website or our Privacy Policy please contact us at <a href="mailto:info@wnj.com">info@wnj.com</a> or 616.752.2000. 

Self-defense is still a valid affirmative defense to a charge of carrying a concealed weapon

professionals