State v. Haywood, A14–1792.

• Decision Date: 19 October 2016
• Docket Number: No. A14–1792.,A14–1792.
• Parties: STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. David Lee HAYWOOD, Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

886 N.W.2d 485

STATE of Minnesota, Respondent,

v.David Lee HAYWOOD, Appellant.

No. A14–1792.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Oct. 19, 2016.

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, and John J. Choi, Ramsey County Attorney, Thomas R. Ragatz, Assistant Ramsey County Attorney, Saint Paul, MN, for respondent.

Rochelle Winn, Assistant Public Defender, Saint Paul, MN, and Grant Gibeau, Special Assistant Public Defender, St. Louis Park, MN, Tara Reese Duginske, Special Assistant Public Defender, Minneapolis, MN, for appellant.

Cort C. Holten, Jeffrey D. Bores, Gary K. Luloff, Chestnut Cambronne PA, Minneapolis, MN, for amicus curiae Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association Legal Defense Fund.

OPINION

HUDSON, Justice.

This case presents the question of whether an air-powered BB gun is a “firearm” under the felon-in-possession statute, Minn.Stat. § 609.165 (2014). The State charged appellant David Haywood with one count of Possession of a Firearm by an Ineligible Person under Minn.Stat. § 609.165, subd. 1b. Haywood filed two motions to dismiss. In the first motion, Haywood argued that the charge should be dismissed because the BB gun that police found in his possession was not a “firearm” within the meaning of Minn.Stat. § 609.165. In his second, alternative motion, Haywood challenged the statute as unconstitutionally vague. The district court denied both motions.

At trial, the district court instructed the jury that a BB gun is a firearm under Minnesota law. Haywood objected to the instruction. The jury found Haywood guilty and he was sentenced to 60 months in prison. The court of appeals affirmed the district court, holding that an air-powered BB gun is a “firearm” under Minn.Stat. § 609.165. State v. Haywood, 869 N.W.2d 902, 909 (Minn.App.2015). The court of appeals also explained that the term “firearm” had developed a “reasonably definite meaning” through case law and, therefore, Minn.Stat. § 609.165 was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Haywood. 869 N.W.2d at 910. We reverse and vacate Haywood's conviction because an air-powered BB gun is not a “firearm” under the plain meaning of Minn.Stat. § 609.165.

I.

On January 1, 2013, Haywood was driving in downtown St. Paul when a St. Paul police officer arrested him for violating a no-contact order. Following an inventory search of his vehicle, the officers found a BB gun inside the glove compartment. The BB gun, a Walther CP99 Compact pistol, fires projectiles measuring .177 of an inch in diameter, using compressed air as a propellant. The parties do not dispute that the BB gun is a CO₂air pistol replica of the Walther P99 Compact, a semi-automatic pistol chambered for either 9mm or .40–caliber cartridges. Because Haywood has a prior felony conviction that prevents him from lawfully possessing a firearm, the State charged him with one count of Possession of a Firearm by an Ineligible Person under Minn.Stat. § 609.165, subd. 1b.

Haywood moved to dismiss the charge on two grounds: (1) an air-powered BB gun is not a “firearm” within the meaning of Minn.Stat. § 609.165, subd. 1b ; and (2) Minn.Stat. § 609.165, subd. 1b, is unconstitutionally vague because it does not give adequate notice that a convicted felon's possession of an air-powered BB gun is prohibited. The district court denied both motions in an order issued on May 31, 2013.¹ At trial, the court instructed the jury that a BB gun is a firearm under Minnesota law. The jury found Haywood guilty of unlawfully possessing a firearm and the district court sentenced Haywood to 60 months in prison.

The court of appeals affirmed the district court, holding that an air-powered BB gun is a firearm under Minn.Stat. § 609.165. Haywood, 869 N.W.2d at 908–09. Relying on our decision in State v. Seifert, 256 N.W.2d 87 (Minn.1977) (per curiam), the court held that the definition of the term “firearm” is not “ ‘restricted in meaning to guns using gunpowder,’ ” but is to be broadly construed to also include guns using compressed air as a propellant. Haywood, 869 N.W.2d at 906 (quoting Seifert, 256 N.W.2d at 88 ). The court reasoned that the Legislature's re-enactment of Minn.Stat. § 609.165 after Seifert without giving “firearm” another definition indicated its presumptive adoption of Seifert 's broad definition. Haywood, 869 N.W.2d at 906–08. It also explained that the term “firearm” had developed a “reasonably definite meaning” under case law and therefore Minn.Stat. § 609.165 was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Haywood. Haywood, 869 N.W.2d at 910. We granted review to determine whether an air-powered BB gun is a firearm under Minn.Stat. § 609.165.

II.

We review statutory interpretation issues de novo. State v. Rick, 835 N.W.2d 478, 482 (Minn.2013). “The objective of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the Legislature's intent. If the Legislature's intent is clear from the statute's plain and unambiguous language, then [a court] interpret[s] the statute according to its plain meaning without resorting to the canons of statutory construction.” Id. (citation omitted). “In the absence of a statutory definition, we generally turn to the plain, ordinary meaning of a statutory phrase.” State v. Leathers, 799 N.W.2d 606, 609 (Minn.2011). When determining the plain and ordinary meaning of undefined words or phrases in a statute, courts should look to the dictionary definitions of those words and apply them in the context of the statute. See, e.g., A.A.A. v. Minn. Dept. of Human Servs., 832 N.W.2d 816, 820–21 (Minn.2013).

Minnesota Statutes § 609.165, subd. 1b, provides:

(a) Any person who has been convicted of a crime of violence, as defined in section 624.712, subdivision 5, and who ships, transports, possesses, or receives a firearm, commits a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 15 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $30,000, or both.

Minn.Stat. § 609.165, subd. 1b(a). Significantly, section 609.165 does not define the word “firearm.” In addition, the word is not defined in Minn.Stat. § 609.02 (2014), the definitions section for Minn.Stat. ch. 609 (2014).

No Minnesota appellate court has defined the term “firearm” in section 609.165. We have, however, construed the word “firearm” in the context of the definition of a “dangerous weapon” under Minn.Stat. § 609.02. See Seifert, 256 N.W.2d at 87–88.

In Seifert, we held that a .177–caliber CO₂BB pistol was a “firearm” under Minn.Stat. § 609.02, subd. 6 (1974). Seifert pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery, Minn.Stat. § 609.245 (1974), which required proof that he was “armed with a dangerous weapon or inflict[ed] bodily harm,” while committing a robbery. Seifert, 256 N.W.2d at 88. Minnesota Statutes § 609.02, subd. 6, defined “dangerous weapon” as “any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, or any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm....” (Emphasis added.) At the plea hearing, Seifert admitted possessing an unloaded CO₂BB pistol during the robbery; he also admitted that, to the best of his knowledge, his accomplice used a firearm. Seifert, 256 N.W.2d at 88. The district court accepted Seifert's plea and sentenced him to a minimum term of one year and one day in prison under Minn.Stat. § 609.11 (1975), which permitted imposition of a minimum sentence in certain situations in which the offender “possess[ed] a firearm or used a dangerous weapon at the time of the offense.” Seifert, 256 N.W.2d at 88. Seifert later challenged both his plea and the imposition of the minimum sentence on the ground that he did not possess a dangerous weapon during the robbery because his BB gun was not a “firearm.” Id. The district court denied relief, holding that the gun Seifert admitted using was clearly a “dangerous weapon,”² and we affirmed. Id. In explaining our decision, we stated:

In our opinion, the fact that the gun defendant used required gas rather than gunpowder to discharge its projectile does not mean, as defendant contends, that the gun could not be a firearm within the meaning of the term “firearm” used in [section] 609.02. Having statutory purpose in mind, we think that term should be defined broadly to include guns using newer types of projectile propellants and should not be restricted in meaning to guns using gunpowder.

Id. We went on to note that the game-and-fish laws defined “firearm” as “any gun from which shot or a projectile is discharged by means of an explosive, gas, or compressed air.” Id. (quoting Minn.Stat. § 97.40, subd. 34 (1976) ) (currently codified at Minn.Stat. § 97A.015, subd. 19 (2014) ). We also observed that:

The gun used by defendant might also qualify as a dangerous weapon under the alternative test contained in [section] 609.02 (“any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm”). In any event, defendant also admitted at the change-of-plea hearing that to the best of his knowledge the gun his accomplice used was a firearm. In conclusion, defendant's testimony at the change-of-plea hearing provided a sufficient factual basis for the plea....

Id.

The court of appeals has twice relied on our opinion in Seifert to interpret the word “firearm” in other statutes. In the first of these two cases, State v. Newman, 538 N.W.2d 476, 477–78 (Minn.App.1995), the court applied Seifert to interpret Minn.Stat. § 609.66, subd. 1e(a) (Supp.1993), the felony drive-by shooting statute. In the second case, State v. Fleming, 724 N.W.2d 537, 538 (Minn.App.2006), the statute at issue was Minn.Stat. § 624.713, subd. 1(b) (2004), which—like the statute at issue here—prohibits a person convicted of a crime of violence from possessing “a pistol ... or any other firearm.” And once again in this case, the court of appeals relied heavily on the rationale we articulated in Seifert to affirm Haywood's conviction.

The State urges us to follow Seifert and hold that a BB gun is a firearm under Minn.Stat. § 609.165. In support of its position, the State notes that in the nearly...