417 P.3d 541
Or. Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant previously convicted of second-degree burglary as a felony in 2002 (later reduced to a misdemeanor for sentencing purposes), leaving him subject to ORS 166.270(1) prohibiting firearm possession by felons.
- In Sept. 2013 Oregon state troopers investigating a hunting camp found a .38 revolver in a refrigerator and a 9mm pistol on/near a bed in the trailer where defendant lived with his wife and father.
- Troopers learned defendant was a convicted felon; defendant did not seek statutory restoration of firearm rights.
- Grand jury indicted defendant for felon in possession; at trial jury was instructed on both actual and constructive possession theories.
- Evidence included testimony that defendant said he knew about the guns and believed he could have them, and his father referred to a pistol as "his son's," supporting actual possession.
- Trial court denied motions for judgment of acquittal based on Second Amendment and Oregon Constitution claims; defendant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether constructive-possession doctrine can be applied where a cohabiting lawful possessor (spouse) exercises the right to keep a firearm in the home | State: Constructive possession is a valid doctrine; legislature may prohibit felons from possessing firearms even if cohabitants lawfully possess them | Defendant: Applying constructive possession here would criminalize a felon for a spouse's lawful in-home possession (conflicts with Heller and spousal association) | Court: Did not decide the facial constitutional limit on constructive-possession here because jury could have relied on actual possession; conviction stands |
| Whether the Second Amendment or OR. Const. art. I, §27 forbids criminalizing actual in-home possession of a firearm by a felon (facial challenge) | State: Felon-dispossession laws are longstanding, relate to public safety, and remain permissible even for in-home possession | Defendant: Heller protects core right of self-defense in the home; statute categorical ban on in-home possession by felons is unconstitutional | Court: Rejected defendant's categorical claim—Heller and McDonald expressly preserved prohibitions on possession by felons; ORS 166.270 survives intermediate scrutiny and is substantially related to public safety |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (recognizes individual right to possess firearms for self-defense in the home but preserves longstanding prohibitions, including felon bans)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (incorporates Second Amendment holdings and reiterates that felon-possession prohibitions remain valid)
- United States v. Skoien, 614 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. en banc) (applies intermediate scrutiny to firearm-disability laws and upholds restrictions as substantially related to public safety)
- People v. Deroche, 299 Mich. App. 301 (Michigan Ct. App.) (applied Heller to limit constructive-possession application within the home for intoxication-related statute)
- State v. Casey, 346 Or. 54 (Oreg.) (explains actual vs. constructive possession under Oregon law)