Thompson v. United States
59 A.3d 961
D.C.2013Background
- Police approached Thompson as a possible robbery suspect and he consented to a search after admitting to a knife.
- Officers found a knife with a brass knuckles handle that also had a long blade (nine inches) and serrated spine.
- Thompson was charged with possession of a prohibited weapon; the information was later amended to attempted possession.
- Trial was conducted as a non-jury proceeding before Judge Marisa Demeo, who found the weapon met the statutory definition of knuckles and that possession was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The court held the weapon was a “dangerous and unusual weapon” not protected by the Second Amendment and that concealment foreclosed Second Amendment protections.
- Appellant timely appealed asserting (i) the knuckles definition is vague, (ii) the statute is facially vague, and (iii) the Second Amendment bars the conviction; the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vagueness of the knuckles definition | Thompson argues § 22-4501(3) is vague and does not apply to his weapon. | The definition covers knuckles in the weapon’s handle and aligns with legislative intent. | Not unconstitutionally vague; notice sufficient to charge Thompson. |
| Second Amendment challenge to concealed-carry prohibition | Thompson contends the prohibition infringes the Second Amendment. | There is no Second Amendment right to carry a concealed weapon in the District. | Court need not decide broader Second Amendment questions; upheld conviction. |
Key Cases Cited
- McNeely v. United States, 874 A.2d 371 (D.C.2005) (statutory vagueness standard; strong presumptive validity of statutes)
- Brown v. District of Columbia, 727 A.2d 865 (D.C.1999) (not void for vagueness if standard comprehensible)
- Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733 (U.S. 1974) (principle that statutes clearly applicable may not be challenged for vagueness)
- Gamble v. United States, 30 A.3d 161 (D.C.2011) (no Second Amendment right to carry a concealed weapon in D.C.)
- Diggs v. United States, 966 A.2d 857 (D.C.2010) (historical context of knuckles and weapons prohibitions)
- Connolly v. Gen. Constr. Co., 269 U.S. 385 (U.S.1926) (statutory interpretation and notice sufficiency)
- Mack v. United States, 6 A.3d 1224 (D.C.2010) (canon of statutory construction where intent evident)