Powell v. Tompkins
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 6149
| 1st Cir. | 2015Background
- Powell was state firearm-possession defendant convicted on multiple § 10 charges in Massachusetts; conviction affirmed by the Massachusetts SJC.
- Mass. law places a burden on the defense to produce evidence of licensure as an affirmative defense in firearms prosecutions; absence of licensure creates a trial presumption.
- SJC held the license rule comports due process and that the burden does not shift to the state to prove lack of licensure beyond production.
- Powell pursued § 2254 relief arguing (i) due process fault in the license presumption, and (ii) Second Amendment and Equal Protection challenges, plus ineffective assistance claims.
- The federal district court denied relief; on review, the First Circuit affirmatively denied relief on the merits, applying AEDPA de novo review to the state court’s decision.
- The Dissent argued the Massachusetts scheme may improperly treat licensure as an element and urged reexamination of the presumption under federal law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Massachusetts’ § 7 presumption compatible with due process under Winship? | Powell argues lack of licensure is an element; the presumption forces guilt. | The SJC correctly treated licensure as an affirmative defense, not an element. | No relief; SJC’s approach not contrary to clearly established federal law. |
| Does the minimum age/licensure requirement violate the Second Amendment as applied to Powell? | Age-based licensure restrictions unlawfully inhibit arm-bearing rights. | Claims are procedurally defaulted and merits not reached; no violation shown. | No habeas relief; default bars merits consideration. |
| Does § 7’s licensure presumption infringe the Second Amendment or Equal Protection as applied to Powell? | Presumption used to penalize exercising Second Amendment rights. | Presumption balanced with evidence-production burden; not a total ban. | No habeas relief; Second Amendment claims not ground for relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 361 N.E.2d 1308 (Mass. 1977) (establishes that absence of license is not an element but an affirmative defense under ch. 278, § 7 in MA firearms prosecutions)
- Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (U.S. 1970) (due process requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every element)
- Heller v. District of Columbia, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (limits on Second Amendment rights; supports regulatory firearm laws)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (U.S. 2010) (Second Amendment applies to state regulation via incorporation)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (text discusses elements, but not applicable to MA’s licensing defense framework here)
- Tot v. United States, 319 U.S. 463 (U.S. 1943) (rational-connection test for presumptions; foundational in presumption analysis)
- Barnes v. United States, 412 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1973) (presumptions must satisfy rational connection or be reasonable)
- County Court of Ulster County v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140 (U.S. 1979) (distinguishes permissive vs mandatory presumptions)