Commonwealth v. Powell
459 Mass. 572
| Mass. | 2011Background
- Powell, age 18 at offense, was convicted after a jury-waived trial of possession of a firearm without an FID card, carrying a loaded firearm without a license, carrying a firearm without a license, and resisting arrest.
- Boston police, in an unmarked vehicle, followed Powell on foot after observing him approach and then run; Powell pulled a .22 revolver and attempted to conceal it.
- Officer Blas drew his weapon and ordered Powell to drop the gun; Powell fled and struggled with officers before being arrested by plainclothes officers and security guards.
- Powell moved to suppress the firearm as the product of an unlawful seizure under art. 14 and the Fourth Amendment; the motion was denied after an evidentiary hearing.
- At trial, the Commonwealth presented evidence of Powell’s possession of the weapon and his concealment/evading officers; Powell challenged evidence on licensing and argued ineffective assistance of counsel for not suppressing a statement.
- The trial court and on appeal the key issues included suppression, sufficiency of the resisting arrest and possession convictions, and Powell’s Second Amendment challenges to Massachusetts firearm statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Powell was seized in violation of art. 14. | Powell argues improper seizure before drop-it command. | Powell contends seizure not supported by reasonable suspicion. | No error; seizure occurred when gun was commanded to be dropped. |
| Sufficiency of resisting arrest evidence. | Powell argues he was merely running away, not resisting. | Police showed an arrest attempt and use of force; Powell resisted. | Sufficient evidence supports resisting arrest. |
| Sufficiency of unlawful firearm possession evidence (no FID). | State must prove absence of license/FID; burden on defendant to show lack. | State need not show absence; defendant did not have to prove unlicensed status. | Convictions affirmed; absence of license not an element; State not required to prove lack. |
| Second Amendment challenges to Massachusetts firearm statutes. | Statutes unconstitutionally restrict rights of 18–20 year olds under Heller and McDonald. | Statutes regulate who may possess/carry; age-based restrictions may be permissible. | McDonald applied; statutes not unconstitutional as applied; no error in conviction. |
| Standing and preservation for Second Amendment challenge. | Failure to preserve issue should bar review. | McDonald applies; position preserved for review. | Pre-McDonald trial law bound; post-McDonald relief available; issue review allowed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Franklin, 456 Mass. 818 (2010) (seizure timing; flight not seizure until police commanded arrest)
- Commonwealth v. Narcisse, 457 Mass. 1 (2010) (two-fold seizure determination; time when seized)
- Commonwealth v. Grandison, 433 Mass. 135 (2001) (arrest can occur without formal arrest)
- Commonwealth v. Stoute, 422 Mass. 782 (1996) (police pursuit not seizure absent authority/stop cues)
- Commonwealth v. Cook, 419 Mass. 192 (1994) (show of authority; arrest concepts)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 372 Mass. 403 (1977) (burden regarding license absence not element of crime)
- Heller v. District of Columbia, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (Second Amendment not unlimited; regulatory measures allowed)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010) (Second Amendment incorporated to states; limits on regulation)