Title: State v. Quinn

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Quinn  (94-675); 165 Vt 136; 675 A.2d 1336

[Opinion Filed 22-Mar-1996]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.


                                 No. 94-675


State of Vermont                                  Supreme Court

                                                  On Appeal from
    v.                                            District Court of Vermont,
                                                  Unit No. 1, Windham Circuit

Matthew S. Quinn                                  November Term, 1995


Paul F. Hudson, J.

       Dan M. Davis, Windham County State's Attorney, and James Maxwell,
  Deputy State's Attorney, Brattleboro, for plaintiff-appellant

       Robert Appel, Defender General, and William A. Nelson, Appellate
  Attorney, Montpelier, for defendant-appellee


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


       DOOLEY, J.   Defendant was charged with possession of a destructive
  device, a homemade pipebomb filled with smokeless gunpowder, in violation
  of 13 V.S.A. § 1604.  The trial court dismissed the charge concluding that
  because the device was made with gunpowder, it fell within an exception to
  the crime set forth in 13 V.S.A. § 1603(2).  The State appeals the trial
  court's ruling.  We reverse.

       The facts are not in dispute.  On July 23, 1994, the state police
  received a call from a custodian of Bellows Falls Union High School, who
  told the police that he had found a pipebomb on the school's front
  doorsteps.  The pipebomb was seven inches in length and one inch in
  diameter.  It was made out of smokeless gunpowder from shotgun shells,
  paper, and a hollow metal broom handle capped with wax.  A witness had
  observed two boys running away from the front entrance of the school, and
  then saw a smoking object on the front school doorsteps.  Although smoke
  emanated from the pipebomb, it did not explode.  A trooper

 


       questioned defendant Matthew Quinn, who admitted making the pipebomb,
  but denied that he intended to destroy property or endanger other people. 
  He told the officer that he sought only to make a noise, like that of a
  firecracker.  On July 28, 1994, the State charged defendant with possession
  of a destructive device in violation of 13 V.S.A. § 1604, a felony that
  imposes a maximum sentence of ten years.

       The sole issue on appeal (FN1) is whether a pipebomb made of smokeless
  gunpowder is a "destructive device" pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 1604, which
  states:  "A person who manufactures, possesses, stores or transports a
  destructive device shall be imprisoned for not more than 10 years . . . ." 
  The term "destructive device" is defined in § 1603(1)(A) to include any
  "explosive . . . bomb."  The State alleges that the device defendant placed
  on the schoolhouse doorstep fits within the definition and, therefore,
  defendant possessed a destructive device.

       Defendant responds that because the explosive ingredient of the
  pipebomb is smokeless gunpowder it is not a destructive device as defined
  in 13 V.S.A. § 1603(1)(A).  First, § 1603(1) states that "A destructive
  device does not include a firearm or ammunition therefor."  Second, the
  term "explosive," a component part of the definition of destructive device,
  is itself defined to exclude "a firearm or ammunition therefor or any
  components of ammunition for a firearm including primers, smokeless powder
  or black gunpowder."  From these statutory provisions, defendant argues
  that the plain meaning of the statutory scheme is that a bomb made from
  smokeless gunpowder is not a destructive device and, therefore, he did not
  violate § 1604.  The trial court accepted defendant's argument and
  dismissed the case.

       The outcome of this case depends upon how we construe 13 V.S.A. §§
  1603(1)(A), 1603(2) and 1604.  On the one hand, we do not want to
  substitute a general definition of "explosive" for a specific definition
  supplied by the Legislature.  See In re Spring Brook Farm

 

  Found., Inc., 6 Vt. L.W. 316, 318 (1995).  On the other hand, we must be
  careful not to import definitions from inapplicable statutes.  See Vermont
  Agency of Natural Resources v. Handy Family Enters., ___Vt.___, ___,