Court Opinion

ID: 9714781
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:45:29.814411+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:28.557897
License: Public Domain

*667DeBRULER, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
The offense of carrying a handgun without a license is created by I.C. 85-47-2-1 which provides:
Except as provided in section 2 [35-47-2-2] of this chapter, a person shall not carry a handgun in any vehicle or on or about his person, except in his dwelling, on his property or fixed place of business, without a license issued under this chapter.
In Day v. State (1968), 251 Ind. 399, 241 N.E.2d 357, this court stated:
When an offense is created by statute and another statute or another section of the same statute makes exceptions thereto, it is not necessary for the prosecution in the indictment or affidavit to negate the exception by stating that the defendant does not come within the same. That being true, then it is not incumbent upon the state to prove the exceptions if they need not be alleged in the charge . it is the law in Indiana.
In Moore v. State (1977), 267 Ind. 270, 369 N.E.2d 628, there was proof by the State that Moore had no license at the time alleged in the charge. He contended that the State had failed to prove that he was not one of the persons in Section 4 of the 1985 Firearms Act, who are exempted. Those persons are now included in 1.C. 85-47-2-2. This Court held, consistent with Day, that because the list of exempt persons was in another section of the statute, the State had no duty with respect to pleading and proving that the accused was not on that list. However Moore, consistent with the later case of Thomas v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 309, 268 N.E.2d 609, clearly support the proposition that the duty is on the prosecution under this statute to plead and prove to the satisfaction of the trier of fact to a moral certainty beyond a reasonable doubt that at the time of the behavior alleged in the charge, the accused had no license. Washington v. State (1987), Ind., 517 N.E.2d 77, and Lewis v. State (1985), Ind.App., 484 N.E.2d 77, relied on in the majority opinion, holding to the contrary, are erroneous, and should be overruled. I would reverse the handgun conviction.
KRAHULIK, J., concurs.