
    PEOPLE v. CAREY
    1. Criminal Law — Carrying Concealed Weapon — Statutory Exceptions — Burden of Proof.
    The prosecution need not disprove statutory exceptions to the crime of carrying a concealed weapon without a license unless those exceptions have been advanced by the defendant (MOLA § 776.20).
    2. Criminal Law — Venue—Failure to Prove — Timely Objection.
    The prosecution’s failure to prove venue affirmatively in a criminal case does not constitute reversible error in the absence of a timely objection by the defendant (MCLA § 767.45).
    3. Indictment and Information — Misjoinder of Counts — Appeal and Error — Preserving Question.
    A defendant’s contention of misjoinder of counts is not preserved for review where he has not made a timely objection to joinder at trial (MCLA § 767.76).
    References for Points in Headnotes
    [1] 56 Am Jur, Weapons and Firearms §§ 15-18.
    [2] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law §§ 398, 399, 401.
    [3] 5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 545.
    Appeal from Wayne, Edward S. Piggins, J.
    Submitted Division 1 October 5,1971, at Detroit.
    (Docket No. 8555.)
    Decided October 27, 1971.
    Leave to appeal denied, 386 Mich 785.
    James 0. Carey was convicted of possession of a stolen motor vehicle and carrying a concealed weapon with a license. Defendant appeals.
    Conviction of possession of a stolen motor vehicle reversed; conviction of carrying a concealed weapon without a license affirmed.
    
      
      Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Gahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Dominick R. Garnovale, Chief, Appellate Department, and Robert A. Reuther, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
    
      Gus Gifelli, for defendant on appeal.
    Before: Lesinski, C. J., and Y. J. Brennan and O’Hara, JJ.
    
      
       Former Supreme Court Justice, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to Const 1963, art 6, § 23 as amended in 1968.
    
   Per Curiam.

Defendant, charged in Count I with possesion of a stolen motor vehicle (MCLA § 257.254 [Stat Ann 1968 Rev § 9.1954]) and in Count II with carrying a concealed weapon (MCLA § 750.227 [Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.424]), was convicted upon a jury verdict and appeals as of right.

We must reverse defendant’s conviction for possession of a stolen motor vehicle on the authority of People v. Morton (1970), 384 Mich 38.

Regarding defendant’s conviction for carrying a concealed weapon we find no error. The prosecution need not disprove statutory exceptions unless advanced by defendant. MCLA § 776.20 (Stat Ann 1971 Cum Supp § 28.1274[1]); People v. Jiminez (1970), 27 Mich App 633; People v. Gilleylen (1971), 31 Mich App 416.

No error lies in the prosecution’s failure to affirmatively prove venue in view of defendant’s failure to object. MCLA § 767.45 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28-.985); People v. Eugene Collins (1970), 28 Mich App 526.

Further, the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction.

Defendant’s contention of misjoinder of counts was never presented to the trial court and is thus not preserved for appeal. MOLA § 767.76 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1016).

Reversed as to Count I and affirmed as to Count II.  