Hargrove v. United States
55 A.3d 852
D.C.2012Background
- Johnson was convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon, threats, and related firearms offenses; Hargrove was convicted of carrying a pistol without a license and other firearms offenses.
- Hargrove, a retired MPD officer, had registered a .380 pistol in Maryland and did not register in DC or have a DC carry license.
- DC Code § 22-4505(b) provides a CPWL exemption for a retired MPD officer who has registered a pistol and it is concealed on the officer.
- Hargrove sought to rely on § 22-4505(b) as to the DC CPWL charge, but the trial judge barred the defense, reading § 22-4505(b) in light of Title 7 registration provisions.
- The court held § 22-4505(b) must be read in pari materia with Title 7, tying the exemption to the MPD retirement registration framework and its residency/discretion preconditions.
- Johnson challenged a lack of a special unanimity instruction and claimed prosecutorial rebuttal misconduct; both issues were raised on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interpretation of § 22-4505(b) with Title 7 | Hargrove argues the exemption is plain and locationless. | DC Title 7 controls; registration must occur under DC regime. | Read in pari materia; DC Title 7 limits the exemption; Maryland registration not dispositive. |
| Unanimity instruction requirement | Johnson argues for a special unanimity instruction per jury note. | No unanimity needed; single continuous course of conduct supports the verdict. | Judge Morin correctly declined a special instruction; no plain error. |
| Prosecutorial rebuttal misconduct | Johnson asserts rebuttal comments disparaged defense as concocted/fabricated. | Rebuttal mostly responsive to defense theories; isolated remarks do not affect substantial rights. | Plain error not established; no manifest injustice. |
| Hargrove's residency/registration prerequisites | Registration anywhere suffices under § 22-4505(b). | Registration must align with DC Title 7 residency/Chief of Police discretion. | In pari materia reading limits exemption; MD registration alone not enough. |
| Constitutional/lenity considerations | Possible Second Amendment issues not ripe for review. | Unpreserved arguments fail; lenity not applicable. | No reversible constitutional issue; lenity not applicable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. United States, 981 A.2d 1224 (D.C.2009) (unanimity depends on theories for a single incident)
- Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624 (U.S. 1991) (unanimity not required for alternative theories of liability)
- Simms v. United States, 634 A.2d 442 (D.C.1993) (no unanimity instruction required for a continuous course of conduct)
- Preacher v. United States, 934 A.2d 363 (D.C.2007) (unanimity when facts are substantially a single incident)
- Cowan v. United States, 629 A.2d 496 (D.C.1993) (no unanimity where facts are continuous; multiple acts treated as one)
- Gray v. United States, 544 A.2d 1255 (D.C.1988) (continuous assaultive conduct may constitute a single course of action)
- Glymph v. United States, 490 A.2d 1157 (D.C.1985) (multiple assaults during a single encounter; not separate for unanimity)
- United States Parole Comm’n v. Noble, 693 A.2d 1084 (D.C.1997) (in pari materia principle)
- In re L.M., 5 A.3d 18 (D.C.2010) (in pari materia interpretive principle)
- Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244 (D.C.Cir.2011) (registration principles; context of firearm regulation)
- DePierre v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2225 (2011) (lenity not available where statute is not ambiguous in light of related statutes)