State v. Ndikum, Minn.Ct.App., 8/15/2011. Mr. Ndikum, who happens to be an attorney, walked into the Hennepin County Family Justice Center, carrying a briefcase that contained a loaded handgun. Mr. Ndikum told the sheriff’s deputy that he owned a revolver but that he did not know that it was in the briefcase; the deputy recalled that Mr. Ndikum said that he carried a revolver for protection and the he had forgotten to leave it in his vehicle.
A jury convicted Mr. Ndikum of the gross misdemeanor possessing a pistol without a permit to carry. Here’s what the statute has to say, Minn.Stat. 624.714, subd. 1a:
[a] person, other than a peace officer . . . who carries, holds, or possesses a pistol . . . on or about the person’s clothes or the person, or otherwise in possession or control in a public place . . . without first having obtained a permit to carry the pistol is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
Is this a statute imposing strict criminal liability for its violation, or does it require a mens rea? It’s the later. Remember the kid who unwittingly brought a pocket knife to school? In re Welfare of C.R.M., 611 N.W.2d 802 (Minn. 2000). A conviction requires a mens rea, element because the mere possession of a pocket knife is not the type of public welfare offense that one should reasonably knows is subject to strict liability. Same thing here. This panel of the court of appeals says that a handgun “is not so inherently dangerous that [Mr.. Ndikum] should be subject to strict criminal liability for carrying his revolver without a permit.”
Mr. Ndikum gets a remand because the trial court had refused his request to instruct the jury that the state had to prove that he knew that he was in possession of his revolver.
No comments:
Post a Comment