274 A.3d 1124
Md.2022Background
- Two consolidated Maryland cases: Howling and Abongnelah were arrested in 2019 while in possession of firearms but were statutorily disqualified from possessing them (Howling: gun found in rental truck; Abongnelah: gun on his person after stop; Abongnelah was under 21 and a felon).
- Each defendant admitted possession (Howling in a police interview; Abongnelah on a recorded jail call); both cases included stipulations about prior convictions or status.
- Defendants requested jury instructions based on Rehaif v. United States, arguing the State must prove both knowledge of possession and knowledge of prohibited status; trial courts denied and used Maryland Pattern Jury Instructions requiring only knowledge of possession.
- Juries convicted both defendants under Md. Pub. Safety §§ 5-133 (firearm) and 5-133.1 (ammunition as applicable); the Court of Special Appeals affirmed.
- The Court of Appeals granted certiorari and held Rehaif (a federal statutory interpretation) does not control Maryland law; Maryland statutes § 5-133 and § 5-133.1 require proof only that the defendant knowingly possessed the firearm/ammunition, not that the defendant knew he belonged to a prohibited class.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner(s) Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rehaif's requirement that the government prove the defendant knew his prohibited status applies to Md. Pub. Safety § 5-133/.1 | Rehaif’s mens rea presumption should apply; Maryland statutes should be read to require knowledge of prohibited status | Rehaif construes a federal statute and is not binding; Maryland statutes lack the textual hook that made Rehaif applicable | Rehaif is not controlling; Maryland §§ 5-133/.1 do not require knowledge of status — only knowledge of possession |
| Whether the trial courts abused discretion by refusing jury instructions that included knowledge-of-status as an element | Requested Rehaif-based instructions were correct statements of law and should have been given | Requested instructions misstated Maryland law; pattern instructions correctly stated the elements | No abuse of discretion; MPJI (pattern) instructions properly required only knowledge of possession |
| Whether Pub. Safety § 5-133/.1 should be read (via § 5-144 or otherwise) to import a general "knowingly" mens rea | Petitioners urged § 5-144’s "knowingly" applies, or that the presumption of mens rea requires knowledge of status | § 5-144 is a catch-all expressly limited by "except as otherwise provided in this subtitle;" specific § 5-133 controls | Court held the specific text and structure of § 5-133 (and § 5-133.1) show the General Assembly intended only knowledge of possession; § 5-144 does not expand § 5-133’s mens rea |
| Sufficiency of evidence for conviction without proving knowledge of status (Abongnelah) | Insufficient: no proof he knew he was a felon/prohibited at time of possession | Sufficient: admissions and stipulation of prior conviction satisfy elements as instructed | Evidence (admission on jail call + stipulation of prior conviction) was legally sufficient to sustain conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (U.S. 2019) (Supreme Court held 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) requires proof the defendant knew both possession and that his status made possession unlawful)
- Brice v. State, 225 Md. App. 666 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2015) (intermediate appellate decision holding § 5-133 mens rea limited to knowledge of possession)
- Lawrence v. State, 475 Md. 384 (Md. 2021) (analysis of mens rea and when General Assembly evidenced intent to exclude knowledge as element)
- Dawkins v. State, 313 Md. 638 (Md. 1988) (recognition of presumption of mens rea and its application to possession offenses)
- Chow v. State, 393 Md. 431 (Md. 2006) (statute using the word "knowingly" requires proof defendant knew the conduct was illegal)
- Parker v. State, 402 Md. 372 (Md. 2007) (possession convictions require proof the defendant knew of the item possessed)
- State v. McGagh, 472 Md. 168 (Md. 2021) (articulating the Jackson v. Virginia sufficiency standard applied on appeal)