Chow v. State
Decision Date | 27 July 2006 |
Docket Number | No. 99, September Term, 2005.,99, September Term, 2005. |
Citation | 393 Md. 431,903 A.2d 388 |
Parties | Todd Lin CHOW v. STATE of Maryland. |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Gregory D'Alesandro, Assistant Attorney General (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General of Maryland, on brief), Baltimore, MD for Respondent.
Argued before BELL, C.J., and RAKER, WILNER, CATHELL, HARRELL, BATTAGLIA and GREENE, JJ.
This case concerns whether the temporary gratuitous exchange or loan of a regulated firearm1 between two adult individuals, who were otherwise permitted to own and obtain a handgun, constitutes an illegal transfer of a firearm in violation of Maryland Code (1957, 1996 Repl.Vol., 2002 Supp.), Art. 27, § 442.2 The particular issue before us is the contextual meaning of the word "transfer," as it is used in § 442(d), "A person who is not a regulated firearms dealer may not sell, rent, transfer, or purchase any regulated firearm . . . ." (Emphasis added). Thus, we must decide whether a temporary gratuitous exchange or loan of a regulated firearm constitutes a "transfer" under § 442(d). In addition, we will discuss Maryland Code (1957, 1996 Repl.Vol., 2002 Supp.), Art. 27, § 449,3 which establishes the penalty for a violation of § 442(d), to determine the proper mens rea for such violation.
On July 31, 2003, petitioner, Todd Lin Chow, a District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department officer and non-dealer of firearms, was charged with illegally transferring a regulated firearm pursuant to § 442. On November 25, 2003, a bench trial was held in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County. On December 1, 2003, the court issued its ruling, finding petitioner guilty. The court sentenced petitioner to sixty (60) days, suspended the sentence and imposed a two hundred dollar ($200) fine. A timely appeal was made to the Court of Special Appeals and on June 2, 2005, after hearing arguments, the court filed its decision affirming the decision of the Circuit Court. Chow v. State, 163 Md.App. 492, 881 A.2d 1148 (2005). Petitioner then timely filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied on October 4, 2005. On October 19, 2005, petitioner timely filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals. We granted certiorari on December 19, 2005. Chow v. State, 390 Md. 284, 888 A.2d 341 (2005).
Petitioner presented three questions in his Petition for Writ of Certiorari4 which we rephrase to consolidate and clarify the issues:
I. Whether the temporary gratuitous exchange or loan of a regulated firearm between two adult individuals, who were otherwise permitted to own and obtain a regulated firearm, constitutes an illegal "transfer" of a firearm in violation of Maryland Code (1957, 1996 Repl.Vol., 2002 Supp.), Art. 27, § 442, as "transfer" is utilized in subsection (d)(1), "A person who is not a regulated firearms dealer may not sell, rent, transfer, or purchase any regulated firearm...?" (Emphasis added).
II. Whether Maryland Code (1957, 1996 Repl.Vol., 2002 Supp.), Art. 27, § 449(f), which states, "any dealer or person who knowingly participates in the illegal ... transfer . . . of a regulated firearm in violation of this subheading ...," establishes a general intent or specific intent mens rea? (Emphasis added).
In response to the first question we hold that the plain language and legislative history of the "Regulated Firearms" subheading indicates that the word "transfer," as used in § 442(d), is used in an ownership context and does not apply to the situation extant in the case sub judice — that of a gratuitous temporary exchange or loan between two adults who are otherwise permitted to own and obtain regulated firearms. Although we need not reach the second question because of our disposition in regards to the first question, we will discuss the requisite mens rea required by § 449(f) because of the likelihood that the issue may come before the Court again. For the reasons that follow, we hold that the word "knowingly" in § 449(f), in the particular circumstance of the applicable statutory scheme at issue here, indicates a specific intent mens rea — which we find the petitioner not to have possessed.
We adopt, in part, the facts as stated by the Court of Special Appeals in its opinion below:
I know [sic] [petitioner] for 2-3 [years]. I was detain [sic] on 4-1-03 and PGPD took all my guns. Next [d]ay, I called [petitioner] and asked him if I could hold on to his gun until I can get my guns back in a week or two because I felt uncomfortable without a gun[.] We then met at Olive Garden att [sic] 4pm in Bowie and had lunch and after that he give [sic] me his 9mm, out of a bag in the front Passengers [sic] seat[.]
Chow, 163 Md.App. at 497-500, 881 A.2d at 1151-52 (some footnotes omitted).
The Circuit Court stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lawrence v. State
...in the mens rea context, which can either be read as requiring specific intent or general intent. See, e.g. , Chow v. State , 393 Md. 431, 903 A.2d 388 (2006). This Court, in Shell v. State , rejected an argument that the term "knowingly" in Article 27, § 36B(b) required specific intent, i.......
-
Wheeling v. Selene Fin. LP
...515.The primary goal of this Court's statutory interpretation analysis is to ascertain the intent of the legislature. Chow v. State , 393 Md. 431, 443, 903 A.2d 388 (2006) (citation omitted). This Court defers to the policy objectives enacted into law by the General Assembly and "assume[s] ......
-
Alston v. State
...Co., 308 Md. 69, 75, 517 A.2d 730, 732 (1986), and whether the statute can be interpreted in more than one way. Chow v. State, 393 Md. 431, 444, 903 A.2d 388, 395 (2006). The rule of lenity is another canon of construction, an interpretive aid. Monoker v. State, 321 Md. 214, 222, 582 A.2d 5......
-
State v. Beaver Dam Area Development Corp.
...our disposal." City of Baltimore Dev. Corp. v. Carmel Realty Assocs., 395 Md. 299, 910 A.2d 406, 418 (2006) (quoting Chow v. State, 393 Md. 431, 903 A.2d 388, 395 (2006)). 19. On December 30, 1960, Attorney General John Reynolds issued a "Synopsis of Opinions Involving Anti-Secrecy Law," wh......