State v. Ndikum, 802 N.W.2d 844

Ndikum, a licensed attorney, carried a loaded Ruger revolver in a briefcase without a carry permit.
At the Hennepin County Family Justice Center, a deputy detected a weapon in Ndikum’s briefcase during a settlement conference.
Conflicting testimony followed about Ndikum’s possession and knowledge of the revolver.
Evidence showed a case with a holster and loaded revolver was in Ndikum’s briefcase; wife testimony placed the revolver elsewhere.
Before trial, Ndikum requested jury-instruction modifications to require knowledge of possession for both offenses; the court granted for the dangerous-weapon-in-a-courthouse instruction but not for the pistol-without-a-permit instruction.
The jury acquitted on the dangerous-weapon-in-a-courthouse and reckless-handling counts but convicted Ndikum of possessing a pistol without a permit; he appeals the instruction on knowledge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Knowledge requirement for pistol without a permit	Ndikum	Ndikum	Reversed; knowledge required

In re Welfare of C.R.M., 611 N.W.2d 802 (Minn. 2000) (strict-liability construction requires clear legislative intent; knives not inherently dangerous; mens rea generally required for common crimes)
State v. Siirila, 293 Minn. 1, 193 N.W.2d 467 (Minn. 1971) (knowledge may be shown circumstantially; not a pure strict-liability rule)
Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (U.S. 1994) (guns not inherently regulatory to impose strict liability; careful statutory language needed)
Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1985) (strict liability concerns and public-regulation context)
United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601 (U.S. 1971) (limits on strict liability in criminal statutes)
State v. Loge, 608 N.W.2d 152 (Minn. 2000) (interpretation of “keep” vs. “possess” open-container statute; discusses statutory language and intent)