Opinion ID: 2265144
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Defendant's Conviction for Possession of a Handgun Without a Permit

Text: When defendant and Afdahl were arrested, he was carrying a black canvas bag that contained a fully-loaded .32 caliber revolver. It was not the weapon that had been used to kill Flax. Defendant was convicted of possession of a handgun without a permit, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5b, and sentenced to a four-year term of imprisonment, to run concurrently with his other sentences. One of the essential elements of this crime is the lack of a permit to carry the handgun. State v. Ingram, 98 N.J. 489, 494-95, 488 A. 2d 545 (1985). The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt all elements of its handgun control offense,    including the absence of a permit in order to secure a conviction. State v. Vick, 117 N.J. 288, 566 A. 2d 531 (1989). The only evidence the State offered to prove that element was the following testimony of Sergeant Trahey: Q. Did you ever check to see if John Martini had a permit to carry a gun in the State of New Jersey? A. Yes, I did. Q. Did you find that he did? A. Yes, I found that he did not. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Objection. [PROSECUTOR]: Your Honor, it's an exception to the hearsay rules. THE COURT: I would like to know how you checked. THE WITNESS: I contacted the New Jersey State Police. THE COURT: Do you know what they checked? THE WITNESS: They maintain the records in the State of New Jersey of anyone who gets a permit. A copy goes to the State. THE COURT: Did you request a copy of any permit issued to John Martini? THE WITNESS: I just requested if there were any at all. THE COURT: I'm going to overrule the objection. Defendant correctly claims that because Sergeant Trahey simply related what the State Police had told him, his testimony was hearsay, not admissible under any exception to the hearsay rule. See Evid.R. 63(1) to -(33). In order to prove the absence of an entry in State Police files under Evidence Rule 63(14) (the business record exception to hearsay), a witness with personal knowledge of those files must testify. The State argues, however, that the error was harmless, because a jury can infer, until the defendant comes forward with some evidence to the contrary, that the defendant does not possess the required license or permit to carry a dangerous weapon. See State v. Ingram, supra, 98 N.J. at 498, 488 A. 2d 545. Although that is true, in Ingram, we also held that the court must instruct the jury that it may draw or reject such permissive inference. Id. at 500, 488 A. 2d 545. Although the court so instructed this jury, as defendant points out, Trahey's testimony virtually precluded the possibility that the jury would draw an inference that defendant had a gun permit. To assume that a jury would disregard Trahey's testimony without any assertion by defendant that he had a permit is simply not reasonable. We conclude, therefore, that the State's failure to prove, over defendant's objection, one of the essential elements of the offense requires a reversal of defendant's conviction of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5b. See Vick, supra, 117 N.J. at 293, 566 A. 2d 531.