State of Missouri v. Marcus Merritt
2015 Mo. LEXIS 153
| Mo. | 2015Background
- McCoy was found possessing a pistol on June 23, 2012 and had multiple prior felony convictions; he was charged under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 571.070.1(1) (felon-in-possession).
- McCoy moved to dismiss claiming the statute violated Missouri Constitution art. I, § 23 (right to bear arms) and the ban on retrospective laws; the motion was overruled, he was convicted by a jury and sentenced to seven years.
- While the appeal was pending the Missouri Constitution was amended to impose strict scrutiny on restrictions of the right to bear arms; McCoy argued the amendment should apply retroactively.
- The Missouri Supreme Court held the amendment applies prospectively only and that, under Dotson v. Kander and U.S. Supreme Court precedent (Heller/McDonald), strict scrutiny already applied to challenges arising after McDonald.
- Applying strict scrutiny, the Court held § 571.070.1(1) survives because forbidding firearm possession by felons is narrowly tailored to the compelling government interest in public safety.
Issues
| Issue | McCoy's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2013 amendment to Mo. Const. art. I, § 23 applies retroactively | Amendment applies to his not-yet-final case | Prior version controls because offense occurred before amendment; alternatively statute survives either version | Amendment applies prospectively; prior version governs this case |
| Whether strict scrutiny applies to challenges under the prior art. I, § 23 (post-McDonald era) | Strict scrutiny should apply | Same (State conceded statute would survive strict scrutiny) | Court holds strict scrutiny applies to challenges arising after McDonald |
| Whether § 571.070.1(1) violates art. I, § 23 under strict scrutiny | Statute is overbroad and underinclusive; less restrictive alternatives exist (e.g., limit to violent felons, probationers, time limits, judicial review) | Statute serves compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to public safety | Statute survives strict scrutiny; conviction affirmed |
| Whether facial overbreadth doctrine invalidates the statute | Statute facially overbroad under art. I, § 23 | Overbreadth doctrine does not extend beyond First Amendment; statute not facially invalid | Overbreadth claim rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Dotson v. Kander, 464 S.W.3d 190 (Mo. banc 2015) (held strict scrutiny would have applied under prior art. I, § 23 after McDonald)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (recognized individual right to possess firearms for self-defense and noted longstanding prohibitions on felons possess firearms)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (incorporated the Second Amendment against the states; deemed right fundamental)
- Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (1987) (new federal rules apply retroactively to cases pending on direct review)
- Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) (strict scrutiny requires narrow tailoring to a compelling interest)
- Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995) (discussion of strict scrutiny principles)
- In re Care & Treatment of Norton, 123 S.W.3d 170 (Mo. banc 2003) (recognizes State’s compelling interest in public safety in civil-commitment context)
- State v. Richard, 298 S.W.3d 529 (Mo. banc 2009) (overbreadth doctrine limited; does not extend beyond First Amendment)
- State v. Eberhardt, 145 So.3d 377 (La. 2014) (upheld felon-related firearm restriction under strict scrutiny)
- United States v. Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85 (3d Cir. 2010) (upheld certain firearm regulation under heightened scrutiny)
- United States v. Yancey, 621 F.3d 681 (7th Cir. 2010) (found felons are more likely than nonfelons to engage in illegal and violent gun use)
- United States v. Barton, 633 F.3d 168 (3d Cir. 2011) (discussed elevated violent-crime risk among felons)