328 P.3d 1208
Okla. Crim. App.2014Background
- Farthing charged with Concealing Stolen Property after former conviction, Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction, and Conspiracy to Commit a Felony.
- Case proceeded to trial; Farthing moved to quash/suppress and demur challenging Count 2 on evidentiary sufficiency.
- Farthing argued unmodified rifle is not prohibited by § 1283(A) absent sawed-off status or probation status, Marr controls.
- State argued rifle is within § 1283(A) as a dangerous or deadly firearm; evidence showed firearm was unmodified but not sawed-off.
- Trial court granted the motion to quash and dismissed Count 2; trial continued on remaining counts.
- State appealed; Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals concluded § 1283(A) applies to rifles and reversed, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is an unmodified rifle a dangerous firearm under § 1283(A)? | Farthing—Marr controls; rifle not dangerous if unmodified. | State—rifle qualifies as dangerous firearm under current statute. | Yes; rifle is within § 1283(A) as dangerous firearm. |
Key Cases Cited
- Marr v. State, 513 P.2d 324 (Okla. 1973) (initial narrow construction later broadened)
- Williams v. State, 794 P.2d 759 (Okla. 1990) (overruled Marr in part on other grounds)
- Chapple v. State, 866 P.2d 1213 (Okla. 1993) (related to § 1283 interpretation)
- Barnard v. State, 119 P.3d 203 (Okla. 2005) (statutory construction principles favorable to plain language)
- Renfro v. State, 372 P.2d 45 (Okla. 1962) (purpose of § 1283 broadens firearm prohibition)
- State v. Delso, 298 P.3d 1192 (Okla. 2013) (abuse of discretion standard for motions to quash)
- Johnson v. State, 308 P.3d 1053 (Okla. 2013) (statutory interpretation standards)