In Re Prosecution of Hall
2011 D.C. App. LEXIS 626
| D.C. | 2011Background
- Hall was arrested for possession of an unregistered firearm (UF), unlawful possession of ammunition (UA), and carrying a pistol without a license.
- USAO declined to prosecute Hall for carrying a pistol without a license; OAG charged UF and UA.
- Hall objected to OAG prosecution and moved to certify whether OAG or USAO has authority for UA and UF.
- Trial court initially denied certification, then certified the question for summary appellate disposition under D.C.Code § 23-101(f).
- Court must determine which office may prosecute UF and UA given the statutory division of prosecutorial authority between the OAG and USAO and the historical regulatory nature of these offenses.
- Court ultimately holds that the OAG is the proper prosecutorial authority for UF and UA, and remands for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who prosecutes UF and UA under §23-101(a)? | Hall argues USAO handles more serious offenses. | OAG contends UF/UA are police regulations within its scope. | OAG prosecutes UF and UA. |
| Are UF/UA penal statutes or police regulations given their penalties? | Hall suggests penalties push them into USAO territory. | OAG argues they are police regulations despite penalties. | UF/UA are police regulations; OAG authority remains. |
| Does penalty severity alter prosecutorial authority when codified as health/safety regulations? | Not applicable since penalties do not change nature. | Penalties do not convert regulation into penal statute for USAO. | Regulatory character persists; OAG authority remains appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Crawley, 978 A.2d 608 (D.C. 2009) (divides prosecutorial authority between USAO and OAG; roughly minor vs serious crimes)
- District of Columbia v. Smith, 329 A.2d 128 (D.C. 1974) (OAG authority over municipal ordinances irrespective of penalty)
- McIntosh v. Washington, 395 A.2d 744 (D.C. 1978) (FCRA upheld as police regulation; penalties analyzed for regulatory nature)
- Maryland & District of Columbia Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Washington, 442 F.2d 123 (D.C. Cir. 1971) (long history of gun control; authority to regulate firearms in DC)
- McNeely v. United States, 874 A.2d 371 (D.C. 2005) (codification in Health and Safety title indicates regulatory nature)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (Second Amendment considerations; regulatory prosecutions post-Heller)