Snell v. United States
2013 D.C. App. LEXIS 93
| D.C. | 2013Background
- Snell was convicted of five gun-related charges arising from July 4, 2010 incidents: felon-in-possession, CPWL (carrying a pistol outside home), unlawful discharge, unregistered firearm, and unlawful ammunition possession.
- He challenges CPWL as ineffective after 2009 DC Council repeal of pistol-licensing provisions.
- He also asserts merger issues among CPWL, UF, UA, and felon-in-possession; Jencks Act material was not disclosed; and the evidence of two firearms allegedly constructively amended the indictment.
- Two incidents: Winslow witnessed Snell fire a pistol into the air during fireworks; McCoy testified Snell carried a silver pistol and fired, threatening to shoot.
- Jury unanimity instruction allowed verdicts to be based on two separate incidents; the government presented two guns for counts tied to the second incident, raising constructiveness concerns.
- Trial court ultimately upheld all convictions and the DC Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of CPWL statute after repeal | Snell argues CPWL is invalid since licensing provision was repealed. | State left CPWL intact; can still prosecute without license language. | CPWL remains prosecutable; license language severable; statute remains operative. |
| Merger of CPWL and UF | CPWL should merge with UF under Blockburger rules. | CPWL and UF are separate, distinct offenses; do not merge. | CPWL and UF do not merge; consecutive sentences allowed. |
| Merger of UA and unlawful discharge | UA should merge with unlawful discharge because ammo possession is inherent. | UA and unlawful discharge require proof of different elements; do not merge. | UA and unlawful discharge do not merge. |
| Jencks Act violation | Jencks material not disclosed; prejudice alleged. | No prejudice; notes incorporated in other disclosed materials. | No reversible Jencks Act violation; no sanction required. |
| Constructive amendment | Government introduced two-gun evidence; indictment singular. | Unanimity instruction cured discrepancy; counts encompassed two incidents. | No constructive amendment; evidence aligned with counts and unanimity instruction. |
Key Cases Cited
- McCullough v. United States, 827 A.2d 48 (D.C.2003) (elemental proof for CPWL standard)
- Heller v. District of Columbia, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (Second Amendment limits on carrying outside home)
- Teachey v. Carver, 736 A.2d 998 (D.C.1999) (statutory construction principle to save not destroy)
- Byrd v. United States, 598 A.2d 386 (D.C.1991) (clear legislative intent for consecutive punishment)
- Williams v. United States, 981 A.2d 1224 (D.C.2009) (unanimity required when multiple incidents)