People v. Vaines
310 Mich. 500, 1945 Mich. LEXIS 490, 17 N.W.2d 729 (1945)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An ordinary object that is not a weapon per se, such as a jackknife, only qualifies as a 'dangerous weapon' under a concealed carry statute if there is evidence that the carrier used it or intended to use it as a weapon for assault or defense.
Facts:
- About a year before his arrest, the defendant found a knife at the plant where he worked as a 'chipper'.
- The defendant often used the knife, which had a single folding blade 3 inches long, as a tool in his work to scrape sand out of holes in castings.
- The defendant testified that he had never used the knife as a weapon for either assault or defense.
- On the night of July 30, 1943, the defendant was stopped for speeding in Detroit.
- During a search, arresting officers found the knife concealed in the defendant's right hip pocket.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was charged in a trial court with carrying a concealed dangerous weapon in violation of section 227 of the penal code.
- Following a trial without a jury, the trial court convicted the defendant.
- The defendant filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied.
- The trial court sentenced the defendant to a prison term of 1 to 5 years.
- The defendant obtained leave to appeal the conviction to the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an ordinary jackknife with a three-inch blade a 'dangerous weapon' under a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed 'other dangerous weapons,' when there is no evidence the carrier intended to use it as a weapon?
Opinions:
Majority - Starr, C. J.
No. An ordinary jackknife is not a 'dangerous weapon' under the concealed weapons statute unless the evidence shows it was used or carried for the purpose of being used as a weapon. The court distinguished between two types of instruments: those that are dangerous per se (by their design), such as daggers and stilettos, and ordinary articles that only become dangerous weapons when used or carried for that purpose. The court rejected the trial court's importation of a 'blade over three inches' test from a separate statute (§ 226) concerning weapons carried with unlawful intent, noting that the legislature would have included that language in the concealed weapons statute (§ 227) if it had intended for it to apply. Because the defendant's knife was an ordinary jackknife used as a tool and there was no evidence of intent to use it as a weapon, it did not qualify as a 'dangerous weapon' under § 227.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a critical distinction in weapons law between items that are inherently dangerous (per se) and those whose dangerous character depends on the user's intent. It prevents the over-criminalization of carrying common tools like pocketknives, requiring the prosecution to prove a criminal purpose for such items. The case also serves as a key example of statutory interpretation, reinforcing the principle that courts should not borrow definitions or standards from one statute and apply them to another that governs a different offense, especially when the statutory language differs.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Vaines