Carrying a concealed weapon (CCW); MCL 750.227(2); License exemption; MCL 750.231a(1)(a); Jury instructions; M Crim JI 11.10; People v Henderson; Affirmative defense; People v Leffew; Burden of production; People v Perkins; Defendant’s assertion of licensure; People v Combs; People v Pegenau; Due process; Right to present a defense; People v Kurr

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to instruct the jury on the concealed pistol license (CPL) exemption to the CCW statute. Defendant was convicted of CCW after an officer saw that the front pocket of his sweatshirt was “unusually heavy,” confirmed through dispatch that he lacked a valid CPL, approached him, and recovered a pistol from his sweatshirt pocket. On appeal, defendant argued that the officer’s testimony that defendant said he had a CPL and did not know it had expired was enough to require M Crim JI 11.10. The court disagreed, explaining that the absence of a valid CPL is not an element of CCW, and once the prosecution presented evidence that defendant knowingly carried a concealed pistol, defendant had the burden to produce “some evidence” that he was licensed. The court relied on Henderson for the rule that a defendant must inject the license issue by “offering some proof—not necessarily by official record—that he has been so licensed.” The court held that defendant’s statement to the officer was only “a mere assertion at the time of arrest” and was insufficient under Combs and Pegenau, which require “‘more than defendant’s own assertion.’” Because defendant failed to meet his burden of production, the prosecution had no duty to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he lacked a valid CPL, and no due-process violation occurred because there was no instructional error. Affirmed.