Firearm Possession-Vehicle
Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2002 3:42 pm
I am reporting this case because of the profound interest in gun carry cases that I have seen in several of these forums such as in Van Canna sensei’s self-defense forum.
This was a Massachusetts Appeals court case and I have only a synopsis of it.
Facts Synop:
Defendant is stopped after a high speed police chase, was tried and convicted of unlicensed possession of a firearm which police found in the vehicle.
Defendant appealed on the ground that the state did not offer evidence that the defendant had knowledge of the gun.
He also appealed on the grounds the judge wrongly permitted the LEOs to testify that the vehicle was stopped because it was wanted for an armed robbery on Providence, Rhode Island.
The SJC found (1) the jury “could reasonably infer from the evidence that the defendant had knowledge of the gun and also the power and intent to exercise and control over it.” and (2) no substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice resulted from the trial judge’s erroneous decision to permit police officers to testify that the vehicle was stopped because it was wanted in connection with an earlier armed robbery in Providence, Rhode Island.
The caveat in this case to our fellow MA’s (among other things) is not to leave a gun in your vehicle nor allow a non Class A permitted person to drive the car. A proper stop for a MV violation could, under certain facts, result in a conviction.
Example: LEO: “Is that your gun on the floor?” Wife (driver answer’s) “Oh no that’s my husbands”
LEO: “Do you have a permit to carry?” Answer: Oh no, I never even touch his gun when he leaves it in the car.”
Based on the above case, it is the jury which decides by reasonable inference that the wife, in my example, had knowledge and control.
I am sure that the readers could come up with plenty of scenarios.
There are plenty of innocent mistakes which can be interprated as a violation of the tough statute in this state.
The name of the case is Commonwealth v. Valentin.
Alan K
This was a Massachusetts Appeals court case and I have only a synopsis of it.
Facts Synop:
Defendant is stopped after a high speed police chase, was tried and convicted of unlicensed possession of a firearm which police found in the vehicle.
Defendant appealed on the ground that the state did not offer evidence that the defendant had knowledge of the gun.
He also appealed on the grounds the judge wrongly permitted the LEOs to testify that the vehicle was stopped because it was wanted for an armed robbery on Providence, Rhode Island.
The SJC found (1) the jury “could reasonably infer from the evidence that the defendant had knowledge of the gun and also the power and intent to exercise and control over it.” and (2) no substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice resulted from the trial judge’s erroneous decision to permit police officers to testify that the vehicle was stopped because it was wanted in connection with an earlier armed robbery in Providence, Rhode Island.
The caveat in this case to our fellow MA’s (among other things) is not to leave a gun in your vehicle nor allow a non Class A permitted person to drive the car. A proper stop for a MV violation could, under certain facts, result in a conviction.
Example: LEO: “Is that your gun on the floor?” Wife (driver answer’s) “Oh no that’s my husbands”
LEO: “Do you have a permit to carry?” Answer: Oh no, I never even touch his gun when he leaves it in the car.”
Based on the above case, it is the jury which decides by reasonable inference that the wife, in my example, had knowledge and control.
I am sure that the readers could come up with plenty of scenarios.
There are plenty of innocent mistakes which can be interprated as a violation of the tough statute in this state.
The name of the case is Commonwealth v. Valentin.
Alan K