State v. Parr
| Decision Date | 17 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2020-0570 |
| Citation | 175 N.H. 52,280 A.3d 775 |
| Parties | The STATE of New Hampshire v. Justin PARR |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
John M. Formella, attorney general, and Anthony J. Galdieri, solicitor general (Weston R. Sager, assistant attorney general, on the brief, and Anthony J. Galdieri, orally), for the State.
Lehman Major List, PLLC, of Concord (Sean R. List on the brief and orally), and Law Office of Michael J. Zaino, PLLC, of Hampton (Michael J. Zaino on the brief), for the defendant.
The defendant, Justin Parr, appeals his conviction, following a bench trial in the Superior Court (Schulman, J.), on one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. RSA 159:3, I(a) (2014). The defendant argues that the Superior Court (Kissinger, J.) erred by denying his motion to dismiss his felon in possession of a firearm indictment because, in his view, RSA 159:3, I(a) does not prohibit felons from possessing antique pistols and revolvers. The defendant also argues that several provisions of RSA chapter 159 are unconstitutionally vague in violation of the State and Federal Constitutions. We conclude that the term "other firearm" in RSA 159:3, I(a) applies to any weapon from which a shot can be discharged by gunpowder, including antique firearms. We further conclude that RSA 159:3, I(a) is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to felons in possession of antique firearms. Accordingly, we affirm.
The following facts are undisputed or supported by the record. In April 2018, the defendant was convicted of a felony and placed on probation. In April 2019, the defendant's probation and parole officer (PPO) received information that the defendant was using firearms at his Andover residence, in violation of his probation. After searching his vehicle and the Andover residence, the PPO and local police found black powder, a package of shot, and a firearm (charged handgun), among other things. The New Hampshire State Laboratory examined the charged handgun and classified it as a ".44 caliber ... black powder percussion cap revolver, model 1851 Reb Nord Navy Sheriff" with two lead balls and two powder charges. The laboratory also tested the charged handgun and concluded that it functioned normally.
Ultimately, the State indicted the defendant on one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, among other charges. The defendant moved to dismiss the felon in possession of a firearm indictment. Relying upon RSA 159:1 (2014) and federal law, he argued that RSA 159:3, I(a) contains an exception for antique firearms and that, because the firearm found at the Andover residence was an antique, he did not violate the statute.
See 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3), (16) (2018). The State objected, arguing that the term "other firearm" in RSA 159:3, I(a) included the charged handgun. See RSA 159:3, I(a). After a hearing, the trial court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss. The court concluded that the term "other firearm" in RSA 159:3, I(a) "prohibit[s] felons from possessing any weapon within the broad class of firearms," which includes "antiques or replicas if they are weapons from which shots can be discharged by gunpowder." (Quotation omitted.) The defendant filed a motion for reconsideration, which the court denied.
Thereafter, to preserve his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss, the defendant stipulated to the facts and requested a bench trial. The State made an offer of proof, to which the defendant did not object, and the trial court convicted the defendant on the felon in possession of a firearm indictment. This appeal followed.
The defendant first argues that, in denying his motion to dismiss, the trial court misconstrued RSA 159:3, I(a) as applying to antique firearms. The interpretation of a statute presents a question of law, which we review de novo. See State v. Pinault, 168 N.H. 28, 31, 120 A.3d 913 (2015). In matters of statutory interpretation, the intent of the legislature is expressed in the words of the statute considered as a whole. See id. We first look to the language of the statute itself, and, if possible, construe that language according to its plain and ordinary meaning. Id. Further, we interpret legislative intent from the statute as written and will not consider what the legislature might have said or add language the legislature did not see fit to include. Id. Finally, we interpret statutes in the context of the overall statutory scheme and not in isolation. Id.
Because RSA chapter 159 does not expressly define the phrase "other firearm," we look to the dictionary for guidance. See State v. Ruff, 155 N.H. 536, 539, 927 A.2d 489 (2007). The dictionary defines the term "firearm" as "a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 854 (unabridged ed. 2002). We previously adopted this definition in State v. Beaudette, 124 N.H. 579, 581, 474 A.2d 1012 (1984), when defining the term "firearm" for the purposes of New Hampshire's felonious use of a firearm statute, see RSA 650-A:1 (2016). In so holding, we observed that "other jurisdictions have considered this question and determined that gunpowder and the capability of discharge are the distinguishing features of a firearm." Beaudette, 124 N.H. at 581, 474 A.2d 1012 (collecting cases); see State v. St. John, 129 N.H. 1, 2-4, 523 A.2d 26 (1986) ().
Accordingly, consistent with our previous holdings, we conclude that the term "firearm" as used in RSA 159:3, I(a) means "a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder." Beaudette, 124 N.H. at 581, 474 A.2d 1012 (quotation omitted). We further conclude, as the trial court did, that the term "other firearm" prohibits felons from possessing any weapon within the broad class of firearms. RSA 159:3, I(a). This prohibition includes antique weapons from which shot can be discharged by gunpowder. See Beaudette, 124 N.H. at 581, 474 A.2d 1012. As explained above, the New Hampshire State Laboratory test-fired the charged handgun and determined that it functioned normally. Therefore, applying the above-stated definition of firearm, we conclude that the defendant's possession of the charged handgun fell within the scope of RSA 159:3, I(a) as an "other firearm."
The defendant counters that interpreting the phrase "other firearm" as including any weapon that discharges a shot by gunpowder renders superfluous the inclusion of "pistol" and "revolver" in RSA 159:3, I(a). We observe that "[w]e must give effect to all words in a statute, and presume that the legislature did not enact superfluous or redundant words." State v. Thiel, 160 N.H. 462, 465, 999 A.2d 367 (2010) (quotation omitted). However, we are not persuaded that our interpretation of RSA 159:3, I(a) renders the words "pistol" and "revolver" superfluous. The legislature's use of the word "other" in RSA 159:3, I(a) demonstrates that the statute prohibits felons from possessing any "firearm" that does not fall within the definition of "[p]istol or revolver" in RSA 159:1, such as antiques. See RSA 159:1 ; Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1598 (unabridged ed. 2002) (defining "other" as "something that exists as an opposite of or as excluded by something else"). Therefore, although the terms "pistol," "revolver," and "firearm" may overlap, because the legislature employed the term "other firearm," the three terms are not coextensive. RSA 159:3, I(a).
In addition, the defendant argues that fireworks discharge shot from gunpowder, and that "virtually anything" can be considered a deadly weapon. State v. Kousounadis, 159 N.H. 413, 425, 986 A.2d 603 (2009). Therefore, he argues, interpreting the phrase "other firearm" as including any weapon that discharges a shot by gunpowder "leads to the absurd conclusion" that many residential use fireworks would be considered firearms. See State v. Wilson, 169 N.H. 755, 766, 159 A.3d 859 (2017) (). We disagree. The defendant conflates the terms "firearm" and "deadly weapon." RSA 159:3. Although a firework may become a deadly weapon based upon how it is used, see RSA 625:11, V (2016), that does not inform whether its mere possession makes it a "firearm" under RSA 159:3, I(a).
In further support of his argument that RSA 159:3, I(a) does not apply to antiques, the defendant points to the language of RSA 159:1, which provides:
To continue reading
Request your trial