Commonwealth
v. Reyes
464 Mass. 245 (2013)
Summary
The defendant
was charged with improperly carrying a firearm in a motor vehicle and
unlawfully storing a firearm. The defendant
filed a motion for a required finding of not guilty on both charges, which was
denied. The defendant was convicted of both
charges. The defendant appealed.
The
Supreme Judicial Court disagreed with the defendant’s claim that Mass. Gen.
Laws ch. 140. §§ 131L(a), the storage statute, was unconstitutionally vague
and in violation of his right to due process.
The court was not persuaded because text, legislative history, related
statutes, and secondary resources all display a common understanding of the
core elements of properly storing a firearm.
The statute defined the offense with ordinary and approved language.
Furthermore, the defendant should have been aware of what was acceptable
storage because in order to obtain a firearm license, applicants must complete
a course that includes a curriculum on applicable laws relation to the
possession, transportation, and storage of firearms.
The
defendant also argued that the storage statute violated his constitutionally
protected rights to self-defense. The Supreme Judicial Court rejected the
notion that the locking of a gun inside container inside a locked motor vehicle
unlawfully hinders his right to use the firearm in self-defense. The defendant’s Second Amendment right to
self-defense was not infringed on by § 131L(a) because it only imposed
storage restrictions where the firearm was not within the gun owner’s
possession or control.
The main
question is whether the carrying statute applied once the defendant left his vehicle
and the firearm in it. The Supreme
Judicial Court concluded that once the defendant left his firearm in the
vehicle, he became subject to the storage statute and not the carrying statute. The court ordered a judgment of not guilty on
the carrying charge because the evidence at trial was insufficient to prove he
unlawfully carried his firearm.
The Supreme
Judicial Court agreed with the defendant’s complaint that the judge’s jury
instruction about what qualifies as a locked container pursuant to the storage
statute because …. By law, a locked
glove compartment in a vehicle might be adequate under § 131L(a)
depending on the particular factual circumstances including the nature of the
locking mechanism. A locked or secure
container is one that prevents children or unauthorized persons from gaining
access to firearms and harming themselves or others. The reason for the firearm control law was to
limit access to deadly weapons by irresponsible, incompetent, or unauthorized
people. The legislature did not consider a locked motor vehicle itself to be a
secure container for storage of firearms, but this still did not resolve
whether a locked glove compartment would be adequate under the storage
statute. The evidence in this case was
conflicting on whether the glove compartment was locked or unlocked. Since the jury’s determination was heavily
based on the meaning of the term locked container which was unclear, and central
to the defense, the judge should have offered additional guidance regarding the
term’s meaning.
In sum,
the court rejected the defendant’s claim about the constitutional claims, but
reversed his conviction under the carrying statute and directed a verdict in
his favor. Also, the court reversed the defendant’s
conviction under the storage statute due to the judge’s improper jury
instructions and remanded the case for a retrial.
Written on 7/29/13
