State v. Adrian Hazard
68 A.3d 479
| R.I. | 2013Background
- Hazard, on probation for manslaughter and a firearms conviction, fled from two uniformed officers when ordered to stop his car.
- A replica of an 1858 Remington revolver was found on the car floor after the arrest.
- Trial court held Hazard violated probation based on eluding police and firearm possession; sentenced him to ten years of suspended sentence.
- State charged Hazard with reckless vehicle operation, carrying a pistol without a license, and possession of a firearm by a felon.
- State moved in limine to interpret the Firearms Act broadly; trial court denied and Hazard appealed.
- Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the trial court on all probation-violation and Firearms Act interpretations; there is a concurrence/dissent on statutory interpretation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether probation violation finding was proper | State: eluding and possession breached probation terms | Hazard: underlying firearm issue may not have violated probation and sentence excessive | Probation violation affirmed |
| Whether the Firearms Act § 11-47-2(3) requires all listed guns to expel a projectile or be readily convertible | State: last-antecedent rule makes only the last item require operability | Hazard: interpret by last antecedent; lenity supports narrower reading | Ambiguous statute; firearm must expel a projectile or be readily convertible; majority rejects last-antecedent-only reading |
| Whether the frame or receiver language expands the definition of firearm to inoperable frames/receivers | State: frame/receiver controls as firearm regardless of operability | Hazard: frames/receivers cannot be firearms unless operable or convertible | Frame/receiver must still be within the operability/convertibility framework; majority treats as within the broader interpretation |
| Whether the antique-firearm exemption excludes the revolver found | State: antique exemption can apply if unsuitable for use | Hazard: revolver could be repaired, thus not antique-only-exempt | Revolver not exempt; could be made operable and thus qualifies as firearm/pistol |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell v. State, 56 A.3d 448 (R.I. 2012) (statutory interpretation de novo standard)
- Reynolds v. Town of Jamestown, 45 A.3d 537 (R.I. 2012) (statutory interpretation; legislative history considered)
- United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336 (U.S. 1971) (interpretation of modifying clauses in lists; structure matters)
- Jama v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 543 U.S. 335 (U.S. 2005) (structure can rebut last antecedent in certain contexts)
- Benevides, 425 A.2d 77 (R.I. 1981) (operability as an element in pistol/revolver prosecutions)
- Mosby v. Devine, 851 A.2d 1031 (R.I. 2004) (overview of Firearms Act purpose and scheme)
- State v. Brown, 486 A.2d 595 (R.I. 1985) (last antecedent rule acknowledged but not controlling)