Supreme Court Affirms Court of Appeals Ruling That Possession of Handgun Without Permit to Carry Requires Proof of Knowledge of Possession

State v. Ndikum, Minn.S.Ct., 7/11/2012.  This comes up from the court of appeals.  Read here.  Recall that an attorney brought a briefcase with a loaded gun into a courthouse; he explained that he did not know that the gun was in the briefcase.  He got charged anyway with various gun offenses.  He requested, but did not get, an instruction that knowledge is an element of both the felony charge of possession of a dangerous weapon within a courthouse complex; and of the gross misdemeanor charge of possession of a pistol in public.  The court of appeals had reversed this conviction and now the supreme court upholds the court of appeals.

The gross misdemeanor statute, the offense of conviction, states:

A person, other than a peace officer, as defined in section 626.84, subdivision 1, who carries, holds, or possesses a pistol in a motor vehicle, snowmobile, or boat, or on or about the person’s clothes or the person, or otherwise in possession or control in a public place, as defined in section 624.7181, subdivision 1, paragraph (c), without first having obtained a permit to carry the pistol is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. A person who is convicted a second or subsequent time is guilty of a felony.

Minn. Stat. § 624.174, subd. 1a. As written, the statute contains no express mens rea or knowledge requirement.  However, legislative intent to impose strict criminal liability must be clear.  In re C.R.M., 611 N.W.2d 802 (Minn. 2000).  (That’s the kid who unwittingly brought a weapon onto school property.)  If the statute is a “public welfare statute” then it may be that the legislature has dispensed with a mens rea requirement.  But, this carry statute is intended “to promote the ability of law-abiding citizens to carry guns in public, not to restrict gun ownership and possession.”  The statute also carves out a number of exceptions to the permit requirement, including, pertinent (sort of) here, carrying a pistol between one’s home and place of business.  For these, and a couple other reasons, Justice Myers, writing for a unanimous court, holds that the state must prove that Mr. Ndikum knew he possessed the pistol.