Summary 2006 WY 76

Summary of Decision issued June 28, 2006

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library for assistance.]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Harris v. State

Citation: 2006 WY 76

Docket Number: 05-29

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, the Honorable Scott W. Skavdahl, Judge.

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Ken Koski, State Public Defender; Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate Counsel; Tina N. Kerin, Senior Assistant Public Defender; Jessie Hardy, Student Intern. Argument by Mr. Hardy.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Paul Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Mr. Rehurek.

Date of Decision: June 28, 2006.

Issue: Whether a muzzle-loading black powder rifle is a “firearm” as set forth in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-8-102. Whether the district court erred when it denied Appellant’s motion to dismiss finding that Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-8-102 was not constitutionally vague both on its face and as applied to Appellant even though the statute does not define the term firearm. Whether the district court erred by granting the State’s motion in limine which precluded Appellant from presenting evidence regarding his understanding that it was not illegal for him to possess the black powder rifle.

Holding: Appellant was previously convicted of two felonies, aggravated robbery and robbery. Both are violent felonies as defined by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-1-1-4(xii). As a violent felon, he is prohibited from possessing firearms pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-8-102. Whether a muzzle-loading black powder rifle constitutes a firearm as contemplated by the statute requires statutory interpretation. The Court reviews such questions of law de novo. "Firearm" is not defined in the statute but the Court stated that the term is not a word which required a new or different definition because it is not ambiguous. Appellant’s contention that the Court adopt the definition of firearms as contained in U.S.C. § 921(a) was misguided because Appellant was not charged with violating the federal statute. The Wyoming legislature did not create an exception for a muzzle-loading black powder rifle.
Appellant challenged the above statute as unconstitutionally vague both on its face and as applied. The Court reviewed the challenge de novo. Appellant bears the burden of proof. The Court has previously recognized that placing restrictions upon persons convicted of certain crimes from possessing firearms is a reasonable and legitimate exercise of police power. Appellant did not provide the Court with a situation where the application of the statute was uncertain, much less that the statute is vague in all of its applications, as he is required to do. Appellant failed to show that the statute provided insufficient notice to a person of ordinary intelligence that possession of a black powder rifle by a violent felon was illegal, and that he was the victim of arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.
Appellant contended he was denied his constitutional right to present a defense when the district court granted the state’s motion in limine to exclude evidence regarding Appellant’s belief that he did not knowingly violate a law. The district court agreed with Appellee and concluded that Appellant’s belief was a mistake of law and not a defense to the general intent crime with which he was charged. The Court found no error in the district court’s decision to grant the motion in limine.

J. Burke delivered the opinion for the court.

Affirmed.

Link to the case: http://tinyurl.com/gtv85 .