State of Missouri v. Raymond Robinson, (and) State of Missouri v. Steve Lomax
2016 Mo. LEXIS 37
| Mo. | 2016Background
- Robinson and Lomax were charged under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 571.070.1 for unlawful possession of a firearm based on prior nonviolent felony convictions; both arrests occurred before Amendment 5 to Mo. Const. art. I, § 23 became effective.
- Each defendant moved to dismiss, arguing Amendment 5 (adopted Aug. 5, 2014; effective Sept. 4, 2014) protects nonviolent felons’ right to bear arms and therefore § 571.070.1 is unconstitutional as applied to them.
- Trial courts dismissed the firearm counts, applying the amended article I, § 23 and concluding the State could not bar nonviolent felons from possessing firearms.
- The State appealed, and the Missouri Supreme Court heard the cases together, because they raise the validity of a state statute.
- The court applied the pre-Amendment version of article I, § 23 (governing conduct before Amendment 5’s effective date) and relied on its recent precedents deciding that pre-Amendment § 23 permits regulation of firearm possession by nonviolent felons.
- The court reversed the dismissals and remanded, but one justice dissented, agreeing that strict scrutiny applies and would have upheld the trial courts’ dismissals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Amendment 5 apply retroactively to crimes committed before its effective date? | Robinson/Lomax: Amendment 5 should govern and protect nonviolent felons. | State: Amendment 5 is prospective; pre-Amendment law governs conduct before adoption. | Held: Amendment 5 is prospective; pre-Amendment article I, § 23 governs these cases. |
| Does the pre-Amendment article I, § 23 prohibit the State from criminalizing firearm possession by nonviolent felons? | Robinson/Lomax: Pre-Amendment text protects their right to bear arms and bars prosecution for nonviolent felons. | State: Pre-Amendment § 23 did not prohibit regulation of nonviolent felons’ possession; public safety justifies the statute. | Held: Pre-Amendment § 23 does not bar prosecution of nonviolent felons under § 571.070.1. |
| What standard of review applies to laws regulating the right to bear arms? | Robinson/Lomax: (argued strict scrutiny under Amendment 5) | State: (acknowledges strict scrutiny but argues § 571.070.1 is narrowly tailored to compelling interest) | Held: Strict scrutiny applies, but under pre-Amendment precedent the State may regulate nonviolent felons’ possession to protect public safety. |
| Are the trial courts’ dismissals of § 571.070.1 counts correct? | Robinson/Lomax: Dismissals proper because constitutional protection bars prosecution. | State: Dismissals improper because statute constitutional as applied to pre-Amendment offenses. | Held: Reversed; dismissals vacated and cases remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Merritt, 467 S.W.3d 808 (Mo. banc 2015) (held pre-Amendment art. I, § 23 did not prohibit regulating nonviolent felons’ firearm possession and amendment applies prospectively)
- State v. McCoy, 468 S.W.3d 892 (Mo. banc 2015) (same holding reaffirming Merritt on scope of pre-Amendment § 23)
- State v. Dotson, 464 S.W.3d 179 (Mo. banc 2015) (discussed application of strict scrutiny to laws regulating the right to bear arms)
- United States v. Barton, 633 F.3d 168 (3d Cir. 2011) (upheld regulation of firearms possession by certain offenders as advancing public safety)
- City of Arnold v. Tourkakis, 249 S.W.3d 202 (Mo. banc 2008) (stating de novo review for constitutionality of statutes)