324 P.3d 757
Wash. Ct. App.2014Background
- On Sept. 3, 2011, Mark Owens argued with his family at his rural home; his 16‑year‑old son called 911 and told the operator the family kept rifles in the house.
- Jefferson County deputies approached the residence on foot, announced themselves, and observed Owens come out the back door carrying a rifle.
- Deputies ordered Owens to drop the gun; he ignored them, walked toward a detached garage, then hid briefly and surrendered after about 30 seconds; he later said he had contemplated "suicide by cop."
- A district court jury convicted Owens of unlawful display of a weapon (RCW 9.41.270); he was acquitted of other charges; the rifle was ordered forfeited.
- The superior court reversed, concluding the statutory exception for acts "in his place of abode" applied to Owens’ yard/curtilage and that the jury should have been instructed to that effect.
- The State appealed to the Court of Appeals; the court considered whether the "place of abode" exception covers areas outside the home (e.g., backyard/curtilage) and whether RCW 9.41.270 is vague or unconstitutional as applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Owens) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the "place of abode" exception in RCW 9.41.270(3)(a) covers Owens’ conduct in his yard/curtilage | The exception applies to curtilage/backyard; the State must disprove abode beyond a reasonable doubt | "Abode" means home/residence (inside dwelling); backyard/curtilage not covered | Exception inapplicable; district court properly refused instruction; conviction reinstated |
| Whether RCW 9.41.270 is unconstitutionally vague because "place of abode" is undefined | Statute is vague given divergent appellate interpretations (Haley vs. Smith) | "Abode" has plain meaning (home/residence); dictionary definitions suffice | Statute not unconstitutionally vague; vagueness challenge fails |
| Whether RCW 9.41.270 is unconstitutional as applied (Fourth Amendment or Second Amendment concerns) | Owens contends yard is entitled to privacy protections; right to bear arms implicated | Facts show exigent circumstances and conduct targeted intimidation of police, not protected home bearing | As‑applied challenge fails; facts do not implicate Fourth or Second Amendment protections |
| Whether rifle forfeiture should be vacated independent of conviction | (Argued but not pursued on appeal) | State did not appeal superior court’s reversal of forfeiture | Court did not address forfeiture; superior court’s vacatur of forfeiture stands |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Smith, 118 Wn. App. 480 (2003) (Division One held backyard does not satisfy "place of abode" exception)
- State v. Haley, 35 Wn. App. 96 (1983) (Division Three treated attached deck as part of abode/curtilage)
- State v. Watson, 146 Wn.2d 947 (2002) (statutory interpretation: give undefined terms their plain meaning using dictionaries)
- State v. Maciolek, 101 Wn.2d 259 (1984) (upheld portion of statute against vagueness challenge)