Court Opinion

ID: 9628904
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:33:49.426012+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:22.301707
License: Public Domain

Abbott, J.,
concurring: This is a troubling case to me. The defendant was convicted on November 18,1991, and placed on probation. At that time, it became unlawful for him to own or possess a firearm with a barrel less than 12 inches, and he would have been so advised. K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 21-4204. On September 28, 1993, his probation was terminated, and again he would have been advised he could not own or possess a firearm with a barrel less than 12 inches in length.
The legislature amended 21-4204, effective July 1,1995, to prohibit the possession of a firearm, of any length, by any person who has been convicted of a felony within die preceding 5 years. There are other terms of prohibition in the statute that do not apply to the defendant.
*346In September 1995, an intruder broke into the defendant’s home during the night and physically attacked the defendant and his girlfriend. According to the stipulated facts, the defendant and his female friend were beaten. The defendant did what he could to avoid hurting the intruder and then shot and killed the intruder with a rifle. A rifle is a firearm with a barrel that is more than 12 inches in length. The defendant could have possessed the rifle at any time between his conviction in 1991 and the effective date of the statutory amendment, July 1, 1995, some 2 Yz months before this incident occurred.
The State stipulated that the shooting occurred in self-defense, but it charged the defendant with possessing a firearm within 5 years of being convicted of a felony. The defendant could have used anything in the house, other than the firearm, to protect his female friend and himself and not been charged with a crime. It seems inherently unfair under the circumstances of this case for society to say to this defendant that he should have used a knife, an axe, or a club to defend himself and another (and assume the additional risk that entailed) or suffer a felony conviction for his choice in defending himself.
I have no quarrel with the majority opinion that one is presumed to know the law and that the law before us is not an ex post facto law. My concern is one of fundamental fairness. Must a person undergoing an attack first determine whether the item available for self-defense is an item that can be lawfully possessed before the item is picked up (possessed) and used to defend himself or herself?
I think not. One can deliberately kill someone if it is self-defense and the intentional killing is justified. It seems to me that if self-defense justifies a killing, then self-defense should also justify the choice of weapons used in such killing. I believe that is the tenor of State v. Jones, 229 Kan. 618, 629 P.2d 181 (1981). The Jones court concluded that the question as to whether one has a defense for illegally possessing a firearm depends upon the length of time the gun was possessed, i.e., the nature and degree of the possession. Here, the record shows the gun was in the defendant’s house prior to the incident. It was there because the deceased had physically *347harassed the defendant and his friend on previous occasions. Whether that possession was justifiable as self-defense should be an issue for the jury at trial. It was not raised by the parties on appeal or considered by the trial court.
Lockett and Allegrucci, JJ., join the foregoing concurring opinion.