Opinion ID: 1349431
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jury Instructions on Immediate Possession or Control of a Firearm.

Text: Defendant also urges that the district court erred in failing to include in the instructions defining immediate possession or control of a firearm the element of knowledge of the firearm's existence. The court of appeals agreed that the jury should have been so instructed. It concluded, however, that the omission was harmless. The district court had instructed the jury that the State was required to show defendant's direct physical control of the firearm on or about his person. The court of appeals concluded that knowledge of the gun's presence inheres in a finding of such control. This issue will not be retried in the present case. However, for the benefit of the bench and bar, we admonish trial courts to include in instructions defining the immediate possession or control of a firearm the element of knowledge of the firearm's existence and location. We have considered all issues presented and conclude that the decision of the court of appeals should be vacated. The judgment of the district court is reversed and the case remanded to that court for resentencing on count III of the trial information in the absence of a finding that defendant had immediate possession or control of a firearm. DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS VACATED; DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT REVERSED AND REMANDED. All justices concur except TERNUS, J., who concurs specially.