State v. Murray
1602007591
Del. Super. Ct.Apr 13, 2017Background
- After 2011 Delaware reforms, simple possession of marijuana (≤ one ounce) became a civil violation with a civil penalty rather than a criminal misdemeanor.
- In February 2016, Murray was arrested during a warrant service; two caches of marijuana and a loaded handgun were found in his residence.
- Murray was indicted on two counts: possession of a firearm by a person prohibited (PFBPP) and possession of marijuana as a criminal offense.
- Lab analysis showed 22.63 grams of marijuana, within the defined personal-use quantity, meaning the marijuana charge would be a civil violation under current law.
- The court addressed whether the indictment could proceed by treating the civil marijuana violation as an included offense or whether the PFBPP charge could be sustained given the civil-quantity marijuana possession.
- The court denied Murray’s motion to dismiss and ruled that the indictment could proceed, with the marijuana charge potentially treated as a civil violation and the PFBPP charge applying to the same-time possession of a handgun and a controlled substance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the marijuana charge can be dismissed as a civil violation | Murray | Murray | Denied; included-offense doctrine allows civil violation liability to proceed under amendment |
| Whether § 1448(a)(9) plain language allows firearm possession with civil marijuana possession | Murray | Murray | Denied; statute unambiguous; possession of handgun and marijuana at the same time satisfies § 1448(a)(9) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Cox, 851 A.2d 1269 (Del. 2003) (explains lesser-included offenses and jury trial procedures in Delaware)
- Ward v. State, 575 A.2d 1156 (Del. 1990) (principles of included offenses and analogous doctrines)
- DiStefano v. Watson, 566 A.2d 1 (Del. 1989) (statutory interpretation and plain language controls when unambiguous)
- In re Adoption of Swanson, 623 A.2d 1095 (Del. 1993) (court's use of plain meaning in statutory interpretation)
- Yancey, 621 F.3d 681 (7th Cir. 2010) (federal analogs on gun and drug restrictions)
- Carter, 750 F.3d 462 (4th Cir. 2014) (gun-violence prevention justification for firearm restrictions)
- Garza v. Hoover, 958 A.2d 816 (Del. 2008) (legislative intent and interpretation of drug-firearm provisions)