State v. Jones

46 A.3d 1125 (Me. 2012) · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · July 5, 2012

Summary

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court considered whether evidence that Kevin A. Jones concealed two utility-type knives was sufficient to establish a violation of Maine’s concealed-weapons statute. The court held that the statute covers knives designed for, or primarily functioning in, attacks on or defense of persons, and that the surrounding circumstances and the knives’ capacity to cause injury were insufficient to establish that classification. The court vacated the conviction.

Court
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Writing for the Court
Mead, J.
Jurisdiction
Maine
Decision date
July 5, 2012
Procedural posture
Jones appealed from a judgment of conviction entered after a jury-waived trial in the Maine District Court for carrying a concealed weapon under 25 M.R.S. § 2001-A(1)(B).
Standard of review
The court reviewed factual findings for clear error, legal conclusions and statutory interpretation de novo, and the sufficiency of the evidence in the light most favorable to the State to determine whether the fact-finder could rationally find each element beyond a reasonable doubt.
Precedential value
Published, precedential decision of the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Parties
Kevin A. Jones v. State of Maine
Disposition
vacated

Topics

statutory interpretationplain meaning rulecriminal procedure

Practice areas

criminal lawcriminal procedurestatutory interpretation

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the knives Jones concealed were knives usually employed in the attack on or defense of a person under 25 M.R.S. § 2001-A(1)(B).
  2. Whether the statutory classification of a concealed knife depends on the knife's intrinsic design or primary function, rather than the circumstances in which it was discovered.

Holdings

  1. No. The statute prohibits concealment only of knives that, by their design or primary function, are dangerous or deadly weapons usually employed in the attack on or defense of a person; it does not prohibit concealment of all knives merely because they can cause serious bodily injury.
  2. The determination requires a fact-specific inquiry focused on whether the knife is designed for use against human beings or whether its primary function is to attack or defend a person.
  3. No. It is the intrinsic qualities of the knife, not the circumstances in which it is found, that determine whether it is a prohibited knife under section 2001-A(1)(B).

Key quotations

Even though most knives, including the knives at issue here, are capable of causing serious bodily injury, the plain language of the statute establishes that the Legislature did not intend to prohibit the concealment of all knives. (46 A.3d at 1128)
It is the intrinsic qualities of the knife, not the circumstances in which it is found, that informs the determination whether it is the type of knife that the Legislature has prohibited from being concealed. (46 A.3d at 1129)
No evidence presented at trial established that the knives were designed for use against human beings or that their primary function is for use in the attack or defense of a person. (46 A.3d at 1129)

Factual background

At approximately 2:30 a.m., an Auburn police officer encountered Jones and searched him after Jones stated that he was on probation and subject to searches. The officer found two manually folding knives concealed inside Jones's pants; each knife was approximately seven inches long with a three-inch sharp and serrated blade. The State presented no evidence that the knives were designed for use against human beings or that their primary function was attacking or defending a person.

Procedural history

The Lewiston District Court found Jones guilty after trial and sentenced him to two days' imprisonment, with credit for time served, and a $100 fine. Jones appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the knives he carried were statutorily prohibited weapons. The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine vacated the judgment.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…