Case Title: STATE v NANOFF

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1973-05-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 12439 I N THE SUPREME C O U R T O F THE STATE O F MONTANA 1973 THE STATE O F M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs - TAWRENCE KAZOR NANOFF, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of the Eighth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable R. J. Nelson, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Berger, Anderson, S i n c l a i r and Murphy, B i l l t n g s , Montana. Arnold A. Berger argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana. For Respondent : Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana. J. C . Weingartner argued, A s s i s t a n t Attorney General, Helena, Montana. J. Fred Bourdeau, County Attorney, Great F a l l s , Montana . Submitted: April 26, 1973 Decided : - RAY - 9 1913 Filed: MAY - 5 i3;"i -I M r . J u s t i c e Wesley Castles delivered the Opinion of the Court. This i s an appeal from a p o s t - t r i a l order of the d i s t r i c t court of Cascade County refusing t o return items of personal property owned by defendant. Defendant Lawrence Kazor Nanoff was convicted of the crime of receiving stolen property, That conviction was made possible by t h e introduction of various items seized under a search warrant issued by the d i s t r i c t court. Among the items seized were stereo equipment, television s e t s , and a number of guns and ammunition, some of which had been stolen, Also seized were some guns and ammunition which had not been stolen, but belonged t o defendant. The conviction was appealed t o t h i s Court and reversed on t h e b a s i s of a faulty search warrant. State v, Nanoff, M o n t . - 9 502 P,2d 1138, 29 %.Rep, 908. Defendant had been convicted of a previous felony, f i r s t degree burglary. He was sentenced t o two years imprisonment i n the Montana s t a t e prison. H e was paroled on March 15, 1950 and h i s sentence expired August 15, 1950, After defendant's convicti.on was reversed and subsequently dismissed, he moved the d i s t r i c t court under section 95-715, R,C,M, 1947, t o return t o him a l l h i s personal property; not in- cluding anything proved t o have been stolen, This personal property included guns, ammunition, camera, radio, c a s s e t t e tape recorder and an 8 track stereo s e t . The d i s t r i c t court refused t o return defendant's own personal guns and ammunition based on T i t l e 18, U.S.C.App, 5 1202, which prohibits convicted felons from possessing, receiving, o r transporting i n i n t e r s t a t e o r affecting i n t e r s t a t e commerce, any firearm. The d i s t r i c t court offered defendant two a l t e r n a t i v e s : (1) t h a t defendant assign and deliver the guns t o h i s attorney with the understanding t h a t they not be returned t o defendant; o r (2) t h a t defendant ask the court to s e l l the items and have the proceeds turned over t o defendant, Defendant appeals t h i s order of the d i s t r i c t court asking t h a t both options be stricken and the weapons returned t o him. The only issue on t h i s appeal i s whether T i t l e 18, U.S.C. App. $1202 prohibits appellant from owning firearms. Section 1202(a) reads i n pertinent p a r t : 1 I Any person who---- "(1) has been convicted by a court of the Un.ited States o r of a State o r any p o l i t i c a l subdivision thereof of a felony, o r * * * 11 and who receives, possesses, or transports i n commerce o r affecting commerce, a f t e r the date of enactment of t h i s Act, any firearm s h a l l be fined not more than $10,000 o r imprisoned f o r not mare than two years, o r both." The decision of the d i s t r i c t court, based upon the above quoted s t a t u t e was centered on the f a c t appellant was a convicted felon. There was no evidence t h a t appellant was i n any way affecting commerce by h i s possession of these guns. Section 1202 has been interpreted by the United States Supreme Court i n United States v , Denneth Bass, 404 U , S , 336, 92 S.Ct, 515, 30 L ed 2d 488, 491,497,498, decided December 20, 1971. The f a c t summation by the Court i s concise and pertinent: r I The evidence showed t h a t defendant, who had pre- viously been convicted of a felony i n N e w York State, possessed on separate occasions a p i s t o l and then a shotgun. There was no allegation i n the indictment and no attempt by the prosecution t o show t h a t e i t h e r firearm had been possessed ' i n commerce o r affecting commercef. The Government proceeded on the assumption t h a t $ 1202(a)(l) banned a l l possessions and r e c e i p t s of firearms by convicted felons, and t h a t no connection with i n t e r s t a t e commerce had t o be demonstrated i n individual cases. " The Court ruled t h a t the t ~ o r d s "in commerce or affecting commerce" a r e in-tended t o modify the three words "receives", 1 r o r lltransportslr. It then went on t o find there was an ambiguity in t h e s t a t u t e and t h a t when there are two i n t e r - pretations the Court w i l l adopt the one most favorable t o the defendant : I I Thus, where there i s ambiguity in a criminal s t a t u t e , doubts a r e resolved i n favor of the defendant, Here, I w e conclude t h a t Congress has not plainly and unmistakably, t United States v, Gradwell, 243 U S 476, 485, 61 L Ed 857, 864, 37 S C t 487, made it a federal crime f o r a convicted felon simply t o possess a gun absent some demonstrated nexus with i n t e r s t a t e com~erce. I I The Court then commented on the Federal-State balance and i t s desire t o preserve the same, It emphasized t h a t i f the s t a t e s wanted t o pass l e g i s l a t i o n making possessi.on of a firearm a crime by a p a r t i c u l a r c l a s s of persons, they were f r e e t o do so; however, the Congress had not done so in § 1202. Again, i n Bass the Court - > said : "Absent a c l e a r e r statement of intention from Congress than i s present here, w e do not i n t e r p r e t I 5 1202(a) t o reach the mere possession' of f i r e - arms, 1 l Based upon t h i s c l e a r mandate by the United States Supreme Court, we can find no authority t o uphold the s t a t e ' s position. In i t s b r i e f the s t a t e did not attempt t o support the action of the d i s t r i c t court based on any federal law, Instead the s t a t e argues t h ~ t since appellant i s a convicted felon and has never been pardoned, t h a t he has l o s t h i s r i g h t t o own a g~m. This Court does not see how t h a t argument applies where, a s here, the s t a t e went i n t o appellant's home on a f a u l t y search warrant and without authority took personal. property belonging t o appellant, The s t a t e contends i t does not have t o r e t u r n the personal property because appellant twenty years ago was convicted of a felony, Neither the reasoning of the s t a t e nor the action taken by the d i . s t r i c t court is supported by the law, W e therefore order t h a t the cause be remanded t o the d i s t r i c t court so t h a t a l l of appellant's personal property now i n possession of the court be returned t o appellant a s provided in section 95-715, R.C.N. 1947, - - / / 'chief Justice \* -t. - __- , + . Associate Justices.