Lead Opinion
OPINION
Aрpellant challenges his conviction of a felony drive-by shooting, arguing that the BB gun he shot at another vehicle is not a firearm within the meaning of Minn.Stat. § 609.66, subd. le(a) (Supp.1993). We affirm.
FACTS
Appellant Dylan Arber Newman was charged with violating the drive-by shooting statute after admitting he shot his BB gun at a Ford on the highway. The driver of the Ford immediately reported the incident tо the officer who had stopped appellant’s vehicle for a speeding violation. When the officer asked appellant (a passenger) if he had еngaged in the shooting, appellant admitted his conduct and showed the officer the gun in the back seat. The officer found a Crossman 760 Pump Master, .177 caliber pellet BB
At the omnibus hearing, appellant moved to dismiss the charges for lack of probable cause, asserting that the BB gun was not a firearm under the felony drive-by shooting statute. The court denied the motion and ruled that the BB gun was a firearm within the meaning of that statute, Minn.Stat. § 609.66, subd. le(a) (Supp.1993).
After a trial on stipulated facts, the court found appellant guilty as charged. The court stayed imposition of sentence, placed appellant on three years supervised probation, and ordered him to pay a $3,000 fine and $285 in restitution to the victim.
ISSUE
Did the trial court err when it determined that a BB gun is a firearm under the felony drive-by shooting statute?
ANALYSIS
Appellant challenges the district court’s interpretation of Minn.Stat. § 690.66, subd. le(a) (Supp.1993). Statutory interpretation is a question of law that this court reviews de novo. Sorenson v. St. Paul Ramsey Medical Ctr.,
Whoever, while in or having just exited from a motor vehicle, recklessly discharges a firearm at or toward a person, another motor vehicle, or a building is guilty of a felony * * *.
Id. As a fundamental rule of stаtutory interpretation, this court should “look first to the specific statutory language and be guided by its natural and most obvious meaning.” Heaslip v. Freeman,
Section 609.66 is entitled “Dangerous Weapons,” but does not define that term or the term “firearm” as used in that section. In fact, at the time of the offense, the criminal code did not contain anywhere a definition for the term “firearm” (although a definition was subsequently added for a single section).
We can rely on that definition only if it does not conflict with the criminal statutе, MinmStat. § 609.66. See Minn.Stat. § 97A.021, subd. 1 (1992) (“provision of the game and fish laws that is inconsistent with the code of criminal procedure or of penal law is only effective under the game and fish laws”). We sеe no inconsistency here, because section 609.66 contains no definition of “firearm.”
This case is not the first time an appellate court has relied upon section 97A.015’s definition of firearm in a criminal appeal. See State v. Seifert,
In our opinion, the fact that the gun defendant used required gas rather than gunpowder to discharge its projectile does not mean, as defendant сontends, that the gun could not be a firearm within the meaning of the term “firearm” used in § 609.02. Having statutory purpose in mind, we think that term should be defined broadly to include guns using newer types of projectile propellants and should not be restricted in meaning to guns using gunpowder. In this respect we note that § 97.40, subd. 34 [now Minn.Stat. § 97A.015, subd. 19], defines “firearms” for purposes of game and fish laws as “any gun from which shot or a projectile is discharged by mеans of an explosive, gas, or compressed air.” The gun used by defendant might also qualify as a dangerous weapon under the alternative test contained in § 609.02 (“any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm”).
Id. (emphasis added).
Even after the supreme court ruled that a BB gun could be a firearm under the aggravated robbery and mandatory minimum sentence statutes, the legislature has reenacted the criminal statutes without giving “firearm” another definition and, thus, has presumptively аdopted the supreme court’s definition. See Minn.Stat. § 645.17(4) (1992) (when a court of last resort has interpreted a statute, the legislature in subsequent laws on the same subject matter intends the sаme interpretation to be used); Western Union Tel. Co. v. Spaeth,
We note further that, from a public policy standpoint, especially when dealing with crimes against persons, it probably would not matter to the victim of a drivе-by shooting whether the weapon used in the attack was powered by air or by an explosive. Under most circumstances, the physical or psychological harm will be the same.
Given the supreme court’s willingness to rely on the game and fish laws’ definition of “firearm,” and because section 609.66 is not inconsistent with that definition, we conclude that the definition in section 97A.015 is adequate for purposes of the drive-by shooting statute, Minn.Stat. § 609.66, subd. le(a).
DECISION
The trial court properly concluded that a BB gun is a firearm within the meaning of Minn.Stаt. § 609.66, subd. le(a). Appellant’s conviction must stand.
Affirmed.
Notes
. The Minnesota Legislature has recently enacted a new section, entitled "Civil Disorder,” which prohibits training others or demonstrating tо others “how to use or make any firearm, or explosive or incendiary device capable of causing injury or death.” 1995 Minn.Laws ch. 244, § 23 (setting forth Minn.Stat. § 609.669, subd. 1). The legislature defines thе term “firearm," for purposes of this new section only, as
any weapon which is designed to or may readily be converted to expel any projectile by the aсtion of an explosive; or the frame or receiver of any such weapon.
Id. (setting forth Minn.Stat. § 609.669, subd. 2(2)). This statute took effect August 1, 1995 and applies to crimes committed on оr after that date. 1995 Minn.Laws ch. 244, § 43.
Dissenting Opinion
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent.
Dylan Arber Newman was convicted of violating the drive-by shooting statute, which requires use of a “firearm” (not a “dangerous weapon”):
Whoever, whilе in or having just exited from a motor vehicle, recklessly discharges a firearm at or toward a person, another motor vehicle, or a building is guilty of a felony * * *.
Minn.Stat. § 609.66, subd. le(a) (Supp.1993) (emphasis added).
In the American Heritage Dictionary, 684 (3d ed. 1992), a “firearm” is defined as
[a] weapon, especially a pistol or rifle, capable of firing a projеctile and using an explosive charge as a propellant.
(Emphasis added.) That definition excludes guns that use compressed air or gas, not explosive powdеr, as the propellant. The weapon here is a compressed gas gun, a “glorified” BB gun.
The majority cites State v. Seifert,
any firearm, * * ⅝ or any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm, or any other device or instrumentality which, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm.
Minn.Stat. 609.02, subd. 6 (1974).
I have no trouble with the proposition that a BB gun is a “dangerous wеapon” for all of Minn.Stat. eh. 609, our criminal code. But I cannot hold that a BB gun is a “firearm” so as to bring one under the drive-by shooting statute. Criminal statutes are to be interpreted strictly against the state. State v. Soto,
The conviction should be reversed.
. The 1993 version of this provision, applicable here, is nearly identical' simply adding "combustible or flammable liquid[s]” as "dangerous weapons.” Minn.Stat. § 609.02, subd. 6 (Supp. 1993).