Constitutionality of the carrying a concealed weapon in a vehicle (CCW-auto) statute; MCL 750.227; New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc v Bruen; People v Langston; Sufficiency of the evidence to support a CCW-auto conviction; People v Brown; Constructive possession; People v Hill; Sufficiency of the evidence to support a fleeing & eluding conviction; MCL 257.602a(1); People v Grayer

Applying the binding holding in Langston, the court denied defendant relief on his constitutional challenge to MCL 750.227. It also held that the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions. After “a strange car chase, defendant” was convicted CCW-auto and fourth-degree fleeing and eluding, but acquitted of second-degree child abuse. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that his CCW-auto conviction must be overturned because MCL 750.227 is unconstitutional. In Langston, the court “noted ‘that a shall-issue statutory scheme [like the one in Michigan] requiring a concealed pistol license does not inherently violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.’” In addition, “in language applicable to the instant case, this Court stated that ‘the requirement of MCL 750.227 that a person must possess a valid CPL [i.e., a concealed pistol license] in order to carry a pistol in an automobile does not violate the Second Amendment.’” As such, “and as defendant seems to acknowledge, his constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Langston, which constitutes binding precedent.” The court also rejected his claim that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. As to his CCW-auto conviction, it found that “sufficient circumstantial evidence was presented to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant possessed the 9mm Smith & Wesson M&P handgun recovered by the police.” As to his fleeing and eluding conviction, the evidence “allowed a rational trier of fact to determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant committed fourth-degree fleeing and eluding, regardless of whether [he] accelerated or took any evasive measures in response to” the trooper’s directions to stop the car. Affirmed.