State v. Dasean Harper (077427) (Salem and Statewide), 160 A.3d 1281

Background

On Nov. 29, 2013, police stopped Dasean Harper in New Jersey, recovered a loaded .357 revolver and a Florida concealed-carry permit, and charged him with unlawful possession of a weapon and possession of hollow-point bullets.
The Legislature had enacted an amnesty provision (effective Aug. 8, 2013) allowing anyone who unlawfully possessed certain firearms on the effective date to retain possession for up to 180 days provided they transferred the firearm or voluntarily surrendered it consistent with N.J.S.A. 2C:39-12.
At trial Harper was convicted; he did not assert the amnesty provision as a defense at trial but raised it for the first time on appeal.
The trial court vacated Harper’s firearm conviction on remand, concluding the amnesty created a six-month grace period; the Appellate Division initially denied the State leave to appeal; the State sought and obtained Supreme Court review.
The Supreme Court considered whether the amnesty provision created blanket immunity for the amnesty period or an affirmative defense limited to those who timely attempted to comply, and whether Harper waived the defense.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Scope of 2013 amnesty provision	Amnesty is not blanket immunity; it permits disposal but requires affirmative compliance steps	Amnesty unambiguous: possession during the 180-day window is nonprosecutable; State’s charging prevented compliance	The statute does not grant blanket six-month immunity; it creates a time-limited opportunity to dispose of unlawfully possessed guns and functions as an affirmative defense
Interaction with N.J.S.A. 2C:39-12 (surrender procedure)	Amnesty requires compliance with surrender rules (written notice before charges/investigation)	Defendant argues surrender notice requirement not material to his claim	Voluntary surrender under amnesty must comply with N.J.S.A. 2C:39-12 to avoid being a ‘free pass’ after police knew of possession
Burden and timing to assert amnesty	Amnesty is an affirmative defense; defendant must give pretrial notice and present it at trial; otherwise waived	Defendant contends the defense can be raised on appeal because statute is unambiguous	Court: Amnesty is an affirmative defense subject to normal pretrial notice rules; Harper waived it by not raising it at trial
Application to out-of-state transient possessors	State: statute targets those who possessed unlawfully in NJ on effective date; out-of-state transients unlikely covered	Harper claims he owned the gun on Aug. 8 and could not comply due to State action	Court: Statute is not clearly intended to cover out-of-state persons merely passing through; record here does not show possession on Aug. 8 or attempted surrender during amnesty period

Key Cases Cited

State v. Gorthy, 226 N.J. 516 (de novo review of statutory interpretation)
DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477 (plain-meaning rule for statutory intent)
Parsons ex rel. Parsons v. Mullica Twp. Bd. of Educ., 226 N.J. 297 (use of extrinsic sources when statute ambiguous)
Burnett v. County of Bergen, 198 N.J. 408 (avoidance of absurd statutory results)
State v. Provenzano, 34 N.J. 318 (statutes not construed to produce absurd outcomes)
Wilson ex rel. Manzano v. City of Jersey City, 209 N.J. 558 (reading statute in context of broader scheme)
State v. Moran, 202 N.J. 311 (reading related statutes in harmony)
State v. Toscano, 74 N.J. 421 (defendant’s burden to produce evidence for certain defenses)
State v. Abbott, 36 N.J. 63 (allocation of burden for self-defense)
State v. Urbina, 221 N.J. 509 (prosecution’s obligation to disprove an affirmative defense beyond a reasonable doubt)
Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (limits on post hoc use of statements supporting suppression)
State v. Whitlow, 45 N.J. 3 (limitations on use of statements from psychiatric exams)
State v. Regis, 208 N.J. 439 (rule of lenity applies only when ambiguity remains after textual and extrinsic analysis)
State v. Fleischman, 189 N.J. 539 (same principle regarding lenity)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance-of-counsel standard)
State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (applying Strickland in New Jersey)