The officer who first spotted the two then examined the motorcycle. When he bent down, the officer noticed a handgun wedged in a space by the engine. Defendant and his brother were subsequently arrested. Defendant argues on appeal that he was erroneously convicted of carrying a pistol in a motor vehicle because there was no evidence that the gun in question was in the motorcycle at the time of his arrest. While the gun may have been on the motorcycle, since there was no evidence that the gun was in a sealed compartment, defendant argues he cannot be convicted under the statute.
Statutory interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo on appeal.
The overriding goal guiding judicial interpretation of statutes is to discover and give effect to legislative intent. Unless defined in the statute, every word or phrase therein should be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning, taking into account the context in which the words are used. Defendant's argument is predicated upon the erroneous premise that the word in can only be properly used to describe the condition of being sealed inside some type of receptacle specifically designed to hold or carry items. Within the limits, bounds, or area of . . . . Accordingly, any space created within the area of a motor vehicle, be it by design or happenstance, can serve as a receptacle for an item.