State v. Jackson, 154 So. 3d 722

On Aug. 24, 2012 Rickey Jackson was detained after a security guard seized a gun he was holding outside a bar; NOPD arrested him and took the gun.
The gun could not be cocked at the scene; later dismantling revealed one spent casing and no live ammunition — the firearm was nonfunctional.
Jackson was charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon under La. R.S. 14:95.1; he challenged the statute as unconstitutional under the 2012 amendment to La. Const. art. I, § 11.
At a hearing the trial court found no probable cause, treated the statute as subject to strict scrutiny, and quashed the bill of information because the gun was nonfunctional (an "as-applied" ruling).
The State moved for reconsideration and appealed after the trial court reaffirmed the quash; the State argued the operability of the gun is not required and that the court relied on grounds not properly pleaded.
The appellate court reviewed de novo whether the statute is unconstitutional as applied and whether the trial court erred in quashing the bill based on grounds not pled.

Issue	State's Argument	Jackson's Argument	Held
Whether La. R.S. 14:95.1 is unconstitutional as applied to Jackson given the gun was nonfunctional	Statute does not require firearm operability; State lacked notice to defend an as-applied challenge that was not pleaded	Statute fails strict scrutiny as applied because the firearm was inoperable and his predicate offense was remote/non-violent	Trial court erred: defendant did not plead the particularized as-applied ground; quash reversed and case remanded
Whether the trial court could base its ruling on constitutional grounds not pled	Court should not decide unpleaded constitutional bases; State must get opportunity to brief/defend statute	Trial court relied on strict scrutiny and operability despite lack of pleading	Trial court improperly relied on unraised grounds (Hatton/Camese); reversal required

State v. Hatton, 985 So.2d 709 (La. 2008) (constitutional challenges must be raised, specially pleaded, and particularized in the trial court)
State v. Camese, 99 So.3d 636 (La. 2012) (trial court may not decide sua sponte constitutional challenges without parties having opportunity to brief)
State v. Draughter, 130 So.3d 855 (La. 2013) (review of La. R.S. 14:95.1 facial and as-applied challenges reviewed de novo)
State v. Dixon, 146 So.3d 662 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2014) (held La. R.S. 14:95.1 survives strict scrutiny and is narrowly tailored to public safety)
State v. Loper, 48 So.3d 1263 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2010) (operability is not required to establish possession under La. R.S. 14:95.1)