State v. Grant
198 So. 3d 1219
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- Gregory Grant was charged (Apr. 14, 2015) with possession of a firearm after a prior conviction for domestic abuse battery under La. R.S. 14:95.10.
- The predicate conviction was a guilty plea on Mar. 10, 2014 to misdemeanor domestic abuse battery (La. R.S. 14:35.3).
- La. R.S. 14:95.10 (prohibiting firearm possession after certain domestic-abuse convictions) became effective Aug. 1, 2014 — after Grant’s plea but before the firearm charge.
- Grant moved to quash the bill of information, arguing the statute could not validly be applied to him (fair warning/lenity and, on appeal, asserting a Second Amendment challenge); the trial court granted the motion, concluding retroactive application was unconstitutional.
- The State appealed, arguing the trial court erred and also noting the Attorney General was not served; the Attorney General filed a brief contending it was not given an opportunity to be heard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether La. R.S. 14:95.10 may be applied to a predicate conviction entered before the statute's effective date | State: statute validly applies; trial court erred to quash | Grant: statute enacted after his plea so he lacked fair warning; on appeal raises Second Amendment and retroactivity concerns | Reversed: trial court erred to find statute unconstitutional as applied because defendant did not particularize constitutional grounds and court relied on unpled retroactivity theory |
| Whether the rule of lenity invalidates application of 14:95.10 | State: statute unambiguous so lenity inapplicable | Grant: lack of notice means lenity should apply | Lenity rejected below and appellate court agrees statute is not ambiguous, but decision overturned for procedural defects rather than on lenity merits |
| Whether the defendant sufficiently pleaded and particularized constitutional challenge | State: defendant failed to particularize constitutional grounds | Grant: asserted fair-warning/lenity and later raised Second Amendment on appeal | Held for State: defendant failed to specially plead and particularize the constitutional grounds as required by Louisiana law |
| Whether the Attorney General was required to be served and given opportunity to be heard | State/AG: AG should have been served and allowed to participate when constitutionality was challenged | Grant: did not serve AG | Held for State/AG: defendant did not request service on the AG as required; failing to serve/allow AG input is error supporting reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jones, 144 So.3d 120 (La. App. 4th Cir.) (standard: de novo review for legal questions on motion to quash)
- State v. Hall, 127 So.3d 30 (La. App. 4th Cir.) (de novo review cited for legal issues)
- State v. Smith, 766 So.2d 501 (La.) (de novo review for constitutional interpretation)
- State v. Watts, 41 So.3d 625 (La. App. 4th Cir.) (lenity unnecessary when statute unambiguous)
- State v. Shaw, 969 So.2d 1233 (La.) (rule of lenity principles)
- State v. Hatton, 985 So.2d 709 (La.) (constitutional challenges must be specially pleaded and particularized)
- State v. Overstreet, 111 So.3d 308 (La.) (purpose of particularizing constitutional grounds)
- Vallo v. Gayle Oil Co., Inc., 646 So.2d 869 (La.) (Attorney General must be served/allowed to be heard when constitutionality challenged)
- State v. Schoening, 770 So.2d 762 (La.) (service/notice to Attorney General in challenges to statutes)
- State ex rel. Olivieri, 779 So.2d 735 (La.) (ex post facto categories explained)