Opinion ID: 2595070
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Did the District Court Correctly Instruct the Jury Regarding the Firearm Enhancement?

Text: The Defendant contends on appeal that the district court erred by failing to properly submit the firearm enhancement to the jury. In its instruction regarding the offense of aggravated assault, the district court told the jury that the State must prove that the Defendant committed an assault with a deadly weapon or instrument, which the court defined as one likely to produce death or great bodily injury. Any firearm is a `deadly weapon.' That definition was consistent with the definition of a deadly weapon applicable to the crime of aggravated assault, which is: `Deadly weapon or instrument' as used in this chapter [Chapter 9 of Title 18] is defined to include any firearm, though unloaded or so defective that it can not be fired. IDAHO CODE § 18-905(d) (1997). The aggravated assault statute does not define what a firearm is. The firearm enhancement statute does provide a definition for firearm, however. It states: For the purposes of this section, `firearm' means any deadly weapon capable of ejecting or propelling one or more projectiles by the action of any explosive or combustible propellant, and includes unloaded firearms and firearms which are inoperable but which can readily be rendered operable. IDAHO CODE § 19-2520 (1997). These two statutes are obviously not identical. Under the aggravated assault statute, a deadly weapon includes a firearm that is so defective that it can not be fired. Under the firearm enhancement statute, however, an inoperable firearm must be one which can readily be rendered operable. Because the firearm enhancement statute increases the maximum penalty for the charged offense by fifteen years, the jury must find the facts that trigger the enhancement. Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Although the failure to instruct the jury on the definition of firearm under the firearm enhancement statute may have been harmless in this case, see Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 119 S.Ct. 1827, 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999), on remand the district court should properly instruct the jury regarding the facts they must find under the firearm enhancement statute. The Defendant raises other issues regarding his sentence, the denial of his motion under Rule 35 of the Idaho Criminal Rules to reduce his sentence, and the district court's decision to relinquish jurisdiction and not place him on probation after serving a period of retained jurisdiction. Because we have vacated the Defendant's sentence, we need not address those issues.