Baker v. Commonwealth
284 Va. 572
| Va. | 2012Background
- Baker, a convicted felon, possessed a Hi-Point .380 firearm at least on three distinct occasions.
- First occasion: burglary of Chapman's home; Chapman testified the firearm was displayed to an occupant the same day as theft.
- Second occasion: Baker attempted to sell the same firearm to McKinney and a controlled purchase confirmed possession of Chapman's firearm.
- Final occasion: Detective Shockley observed Baker possessing, displaying, and selling the firearm the following day.
- Baker was convicted in the circuit court of three counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon under Code § 18.2-308.2(A), and the Court of Appeals affirmed all three convictions.
- Issue in dispute: whether three possession incidents can each support a separate offense under the statute or whether possession is a single continuous offense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether each separate possession occasion supports a separate offense | Baker: one continuous possession; multiple convictions improper | Commonwealth: each separate act or occurrence constitutes a new offense | Three offenses valid; each separate act constitutes a new offense |
| Ambiguity and gravamen guiding unit of prosecution | Lenity favors treating as one offense when ambiguous | gravamen and risk to public justify separate offenses | Statute ambiguous; gravamen approach adopted to treat separate incidents as separate offenses |
| Appropriate application of the rule of lenity in unit-of-prosecution cases | Lenity requires favoring defendant when ambiguity exists | gravamen-based interpretation supports multiple offenses | Court applied rule of lenity to uphold multiple offenses based on gravamen |
Key Cases Cited
- Acey v. Commonwealth, 29 Va. App. 240 (1999) (gravamen approach to possession offenses; multiple firearms case)
- Bell v. United States, 349 U.S. 81 (1955) (rule of lenity in unit-of-prosecution and penalties)
- Waldrop v. Commonwealth, 255 Va. 210 (1998) (ambiguous penal statute construed in defendant's favor)
- Armstrong v. Commonwealth, 263 Va. 573 (2002) (possession as indicative of dangerousness; separate instances punished)
- United States v. Evans, 854 F.2d 56 (5th Cir. 1988) (gravamen principle in statutory interpretation)