158 A.3d 476
Del. Super. Ct.2017Background
- In 2011 Delaware restructured drug laws and added 11 Del. C. § 1448(a)(9), prohibiting possession of a semi-automatic/automatic firearm or handgun by a person who "at the same time" possesses a controlled substance in violation of Title 16 §§ 4763 or 4764.
- In 2015 Delaware reclassified possession of one ounce or less of marijuana (personal use quantity) as a civil violation under 16 Del. C. § 4764(c) with a $100 penalty for first offense.
- On Feb. 11, 2016 police searched Imeir Murray’s bedroom during an arrest of his mother and found two small caches of marijuana (total 22.63 grams) and a loaded semi-automatic handgun on a closet shelf.
- Murray was indicted on two counts: (1) possession of a firearm by a person prohibited (PFBPP) under § 1448(a)(9) (felony); and (2) possession of marijuana as an unclassified misdemeanor under § 4764(b) (later lab results showed quantity only supported the civil violation under § 4764(c)).
- Murray moved to dismiss both counts: he argued the marijuana count must be dismissed because it is only a civil violation, and the PFBPP count must fail because § 1448(a)(9) should not apply when the drug possession is merely a civil violation.
- The court denied dismissal: it held the indictment may be amended or the jury may consider the lesser-included civil violation, and § 1448(a)(9) applies to simultaneous possession of marijuana regardless of its classification as a civil violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the indicted marijuana possession count must be dismissed because the seized amount is only a civil violation | Murray: Count II must be dismissed; only a civil violation exists so criminal charge invalid | State: The indictment can be amended or the jury can convict of the lesser-included civil violation under court rules | Court: Denied dismissal; may treat the civil violation as a lesser-included offense and proceed under Rule 57(d) and Crim. R. 7(e) |
| Whether § 1448(a)(9) applies when the controlled-substance possession is only a civil marijuana violation | Murray: § 1448(a)(9) should not apply to civil marijuana possession; legislature could not have intended that result | State: § 1448(a)(9) unambiguously prohibits simultaneous possession of a firearm and a controlled substance "in violation of § 4763 or § 4764," which still covers marijuana possession | Court: Denied dismissal; plain language of § 1448(a)(9) covers simultaneous possession regardless of civil/criminal classification; any change is for legislature |
Key Cases Cited
- Sheehan v. Oblates of St. Francis de Sales, 15 A.3d 1247 (Del. 2011) (courts apply unambiguous statutory language as written)
- Ross v. State, 990 A.2d 424 (Del. 2010) (statutory interpretation rules and use of plain meaning)
- In re Adoption of Swanson, 623 A.2d 1095 (Del. 1993) (apply literal meaning when statute is unambiguous)
- State v. Cox, 851 A.2d 1269 (Del. 2003) (Delaware lesser-included offense doctrine and procedures)
- Ward v. State, 575 A.2d 1156 (Del. 1990) (defendant may be convicted of included offense even if not indicted separately)
- Van Vliet v. State, 148 A.3d 257 (Del. 2016) (§ 1448(a)(9) requires proof of drug possession, not manufacturing)
- Seth v. State, 592 A.2d 436 (Del. 1991) (courts must give effect to clear statutory language consistent with legislative intent)
- Cephas, 637 A.2d 20 (Del. 1994) (legislature, not courts, declares public policy)