State of Minnesota v. David Lee Haywood
2015 Minn. App. LEXIS 77
| Minn. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- David Haywood was charged under Minn. Stat. § 609.165, subd. 1b(a) for possessing a Walther CP99 .177-caliber BB gun while being ineligible due to a prior violent controlled-substance conviction.
- The BB gun resembled a Walther P99, functioned with CO2, and had substantial muzzle velocity and effective range.
- Haywood moved to dismiss, arguing a BB gun is not a “firearm” under § 609.165 and that the statute is unconstitutionally vague; the district court denied the motion and instructed the jury that a BB gun is a firearm.
- A jury convicted Haywood; he was sentenced to 60 months and appealed.
- The appellate court analyzed statutory interpretation and vagueness, focusing on prior Minnesota caselaw adopting a broad definition of “firearm” (including guns using gas or compressed air) drawn from game-and-fish statutes and applied in criminal statutes.
- The court relied on legislative inaction (no comprehensive narrower definition added to chapter 609) and prior appellate decisions treating BB guns as firearms for similar possession/use offenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Haywood) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a BB gun is a “firearm” under Minn. Stat. § 609.165, subd. 1b(a) | "Firearm" requires explosive/gunpowder propellant; BB gun uses CO2 so is not a firearm | Prior caselaw and legislative inaction support treating BB guns as firearms; definition can include gas/compressed-air guns | A BB gun is a "firearm" under § 609.165, subd. 1b(a) |
| Whether § 609.165 is unconstitutionally vague as applied | Term "firearm" is ambiguous; ordinary people cannot know what is prohibited | Term has acquired a reasonably definite meaning through decades of caselaw | Statute is not unconstitutionally vague; due-process challenge fails |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Seifert, 256 N.W.2d 87 (Minn. 1977) (holds air/CO2-powered BB gun can be a “firearm” for aggravated-robbery/mandatory-minimum context)
- State v. Newman, 538 N.W.2d 476 (Minn. App. 1995) (adopts game-and-fish definition of “firearm” for drive-by-shooting statute)
- State v. Coauette, 601 N.W.2d 443 (Minn. App. 1999) (holds paintball gun is not a firearm because its projectiles are designed not to pierce; distinguishes paintball guns from BB guns)
- State v. Fleming, 724 N.W.2d 537 (Minn. App. 2006) (holds BB gun is a “firearm” for prohibited-possession-by-convicted-violent-offender statute)