[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Bang / Guns Title: What if you bring a gun onto ‘educational property,’ but don’t know that it’s educational property What if you bring a gun onto ‘educational property,’ but don’t know that it’s educational property? That’s not a crime under North Carolina law, the North Carolina Court of Appeals held today in State v. Huckelba. First, the facts (some paragraph breaks added throughout): On 25 December 2012, Defendant [Anna Huckelba] was a senior at High Point University in High Point, North Carolina. Because it was Christmas day, school was not in session, and there were few cars on campus. That evening, sometime after 4:30 P.M., Defendant pulled into a parking spot in front of High Point University’s Administration Building. In order to get to this parking spot, Defendant had to drive past a fence, but she did not have to drive through any security gates.Had Defendant chosen to move her car from its location in front of the Administration Building to the residential area of campus, she would have encountered a security gate, and would need a security card to drive into the residences. Instead, Defendant parked her car in an area that was open to the public, approximately two miles away from “main” campus, where most of the academic buildings are located. High Point police officers recognized Huckelba “because the officers were previously instructed to ‘be on the lookout’ for Defendant for an unspecified reason.” They approached her, asked her whether she had a gun, learned that she had a gun and three knives in the car, and arrested her. She was later prosecuted and convicted for possessing the gun and the knives on educational property, in violation of North Carolina law that made it a crime knowingly to possess or carry, whether openly or concealed, any gun, rifle, pistol, or other firearm of any kind [or any sharp-pointed or edged instrument except instructional supplies, unaltered nail files and clips and tools used solely for preparation of food, instruction, and maintenance] on educational property or to a curricular or extracurricular activity sponsored by a school. “Educational property,” under North Carolina law, includes any property used by any public or private school or college. (Since the incident, the law has been changed to expressly exclude people with concealed carry permits — which Huckelba had — who have “a handgun in a closed compartment or container within the person’s locked vehicle”; but the case was decided under the version of the statute at the time of Huckelba’s conduct.) The jury found Huckelba guilty, after having been instructed, for the pistol and each knife: Because the defendant had no criminal record, “the trial court imposed a suspended sentence of six to seventeen months imprisonment for the Class I felony gun charge, and a suspended, consolidated sentence of forty-five days imprisonment for the misdemeanor [knife] charges.” But the court of appeals concluded the instruction was wrong — indeed, so wrong, that the convictions should be reversed even though defendant’s lawyer hadn’t properly objected to the instruction at trial: In accordance with United States Supreme Court and Fourth Circuit cases, and our State law presumptions, we analyze N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-269.2(b) under the following principles of statutory construction: (1) the common law presumption against criminal liability without a showing of mens rea [i.e., a culpable mental state]; (2) the General Assembly’s intent in enacting and amending the statute; and (3) the rule of lenity. We hold under each relevant principle of statutory construction, the “knowingly” mental state in Gen. Stat. § 14-269.2(b) must modify both clauses “possess or carry” and “on educational property.” … Our reading of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-269.2(b) requires the State to prove that a defendant both knowingly possessed or carried a prohibited weapon and knowingly entered educational property with that weapon. This interpretation of the statute safeguards the rights of lawful gun owners in our State while also protecting vulnerable citizens present on educational property. The court also noted that, Under our reading of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-269.2(b), the State is not saddled with an unduly heavy burden of proving a defendant’s subjective knowledge of the boundaries of educational property. Rather, the State need only prove a defendant’s knowledge of her presence on educational property “by reference to the facts and circumstances surrounding the case.” If, for example, the evidence shows that a defendant entered a school building and interacted with children while knowingly possessing a gun, the State would have little difficulty proving to the jury that the defendant had knowledge of her presence on educational property. If, however, the evidence shows that a defendant drove into an empty parking lot that is open to the public while knowingly possessing a gun — as in this case — the jury will likely need more evidence of the circumstances in order to find that the defendant knowingly entered educational property. The prosecution remains free to retry Huckelba; but at the retrial, the prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Huckelba indeed knew that she was on educational property. This seems to me the right interpretation of the statute, and the right legal rule as well. There are some elements of some crimes that operate on a “strict liability” basis, so that defendants can be convicted even if they didn’t know the elements were satisfied, and indeed had no reason to know that. But, at least except as to petty traffic offenses, that is the exception rather than the rule; the general rule is that the prosecution must prove that the defendant knew the facts that make up the crime — or at least was consciously aware of the risk that those facts were present, and unjustifiably ignored that risk (that’s sometimes called “recklessness”). And when the statute specifically makes it a crime “knowingly to possess or carry … [a weapon] on educational property,” the assumption should be that the legislature would indeed require knowledge that the property is educational property and not just knowledge that one is possessing or carrying the weapon. Thanks to Camden Webb for the pointer. Notice anything wrong? Send Silk feedback
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 2.
#1. To: tpaine (#0)
WaPo. As far as I can tell, this is an ex-story. It has no direct bearing on current law or cases in NC or elsewhere.
She's a student there. She drove into a fenced-in area and parked in front of the Administration Building. But she didn't realize that was "educational property"? Give me a break. She should be arrested for felony stupidity.
There are no replies to Comment # 2. End Trace Mode for Comment # 2.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|