State v. Honeycutt
2013 Mo. LEXIS 302
| Mo. | 2013Background
- Honeycutt was charged as a prior/persistent offender with two counts of stealing a firearm and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm under § 571.070.1(1).
- § 571.070.1(1) makes unlawful possession of a firearm a crime when a felon possesses a firearm; the indictment alleged possession between 2010 and 2011 after a 2002 felony conviction for possession of a controlled substance.
- The 2008 amendment to § 571.070 broadened the prohibition to possession by anyone convicted of a felony, rather than only “dangerous felonies.”
- Honeycutt sought dismissal of the third count on the theory that the 2008 amendment retroactively imposed a new criminal obligation.
- The circuit court dismissed the third count as retroactive and unconstitutional as applied to Honeycutt; the State appealed.
- The Missouri Supreme Court held that the “retrospective in its operation” prohibition applies only to civil rights/remedies and not to criminal laws; § 571.070.1(1) is a criminal statute, so the indictment dismissal was error and the case is remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the retrospective-in-operation ban covers criminal laws | Honeycutt: retrospective ban applies to criminal laws | State: ban covers civil rights only | Retrospective ban does not apply to criminal laws |
| Whether § 571.070.1(1) is civil or criminal under Smith two-part test | Statute is civil/regulatory and retrospective under Smith | Statute is criminal and punitive | Statute is criminal; Smith two-part test supports criminal classification |
| Whether § 571.070.1(1) is constitutional as applied to Honeycutt | Statute cannot be retroactively applied to 2002 conviction | Statute valid as a criminal provision | Statute is a valid criminal statute; ex post facto concerns not triggered |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Bethurum, 66 Mo. 545 (Mo. 1877) (retrospective law relates to civil rights/remedies; not criminal matters)
- Hope Mut. Ins. Co. v. Flynn, 38 Mo. 483 (Mo. 1866) (retrospective laws defined as impairing vested rights or creating new duties)
- State ex rel. McNamee v. Stobie, 194 Mo. 14, 92 S.W. 191 (1906) (early articulation of retrospective civil-law scope)
- State v. Harris, 414 S.W.3d 447 (Mo. banc 2013) (held § 571.070 does not violate ex post facto; relevance to criminal statute)
- Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (U.S. 2003) (two-part test to classify statute as civil vs. criminal; punitive assessment)
- R.W. v. Sanders, 168 S.W.3d 65 (Mo. banc 2005) (applied Smith framework to Missouri sex-offender registration; civil and retrospective)
- Doe v. Phillips, 194 S.W.3d 833 (Mo. banc 2006) (sex-offender registration deemed civil and retrospective)
- Bethurum, 66 Mo. 545 (Mo. 1877) (retrospective in operation applicable to civil rights; not ex post facto)