State v. Carter
161 Wash. App. 532
Wash. Ct. App.2011Background
- Carter was charged with unlawful possession of a machine gun under RCW 9.41.190(1).
- The State moved to reconsider after Carter claimed exemption under RCW 9.41.190(2)(b) as federally licensed and engaged in production, repair, or testing of machine guns.
- The trial court treated 9.41.190(2)(b) as an element the State must prove, and found Carter failed to show the exemption applied.
- Carter submitted evidence of a federal firearms license and affidavits stating work on machine guns for military and law enforcement.
- The State appealed the dismissal, arguing the exemption is a defense, not an element, and that Carter failed to prove federal authorization to possess a machine gun.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 9.41.190(2)(b) is an element or a defense | Carter’s burden; exemption is an element the State must negate | State; exemption is an affirmative defense not an element | Exemption is a defense, not an element, to be proven by Carter. |
| Scope of 9.41.190(2)(b) and federal law | Exemption covers federal licensees who repair or test machine guns for military/law enforcement | Exemption requires federal authorization to possess; Title 18 license alone is insufficient | Exemption requires federal authorization to possess; Title 18 license alone does not authorize private possession. |
| Carter failed to establish exemption application | Carter showed federal license and work on guns; exemption should apply | Record fails to show possession is permitted under federal law | Carter did not prove exemption applied; reversal warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bunker, 169 Wn.2d 571 (WA 2010) (statutory interpretation standards; de novo review)
- City of Spokane v. Karlsten, 137 Wash. 414 (1926) (exemption as defense indicated by placement in separate subsection)
- United States v. Green, 962 F.2d 938 (9th Cir. 1992) (interpretation of federal licensing exemptions)
- State v. Roggenkamp, 153 Wn.2d 614 (2005) (differing terms imply different meanings in statutes)
- State v. McCullum, 98 Wn.2d 484 (1983) (exemption not an element where not negating offense)