Summary
The Nevada Supreme Court held that assignment to and successful completion of a mental health specialty court diversion program did not constitute an adjudication of mental illness that prohibited the defendant from possessing firearms under NRS 202.360(2)(a). The court also held that an unlawful user of a controlled substance under NRS 202.360(1)(d) is someone who regularly uses the substance, without medical prescription, over a period proximate to or contemporaneous with firearm possession. It reversed the convictions on the mental-illness counts and reversed and remanded the unlawful-user counts for a new trial based on an incorrect jury instruction.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether assignment to and successful completion of a Nevada mental health specialty court diversion program constitutes being adjudicated as mentally ill under NRS 202.360(2)(a), thereby prohibiting later firearm possession.
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that Hager was an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance when he possessed the firearms.
- Whether the jury instruction defining an unlawful user as a person who uses any controlled substance was legally erroneous because it permitted conviction based on a single use.
- Whether the instructional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the general verdict and the alternative unlawful-user and addiction theories.
Holdings
- Assignment to and successful completion of Nevada's mental health court diversion program does not constitute an adjudication of mental illness that makes a person's subsequent firearm possession a felony under NRS 202.360(2)(a).
- The evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Hager was addicted to methamphetamine or was regularly using it proximate to or contemporaneously with his firearm possession.
- An unlawful user of a controlled substance is a person who regularly uses the substance, in a manner not medically prescribed, over a period of time proximate to or contemporaneous with possession of a firearm; a single use is insufficient.
- The instructional error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, requiring reversal and a new trial on counts four through six.
Key quotations
“We hold that Hager's assignment to and successful completion of a Nevada mental health court diversion program did not constitute an adjudication of mental illness that made his subsequent possession of a firearm a felony under NRS 202.360(2)(a).” (1065)
“We further hold that, under NRS 202.360(1)(d), the jury should have been instructed that an "unlawful user" of a controlled substance is someone who regularly uses the substance, in a manner not medically prescribed, over a period of time proximate to or contemporaneous with possession of a firearm.” (1065)
“A one time use of a controlled substance is not sufficient to be an unlawful user under the applicable statute.” (1072)
Factual background
Hager was assigned to and successfully completed a Nevada mental health specialty court diversion program after pleading guilty to carrying a concealed weapon; the criminal proceedings were then dismissed and he was restored by statute to his pre-arrest status. After the State returned firearms to him, police later found firearms in his home, along with drug paraphernalia but no controlled substances. A video appeared to show Hager snorting methamphetamine while firearms were nearby, and Hager admitted after his arrest that the substance was methamphetamine, although he later testified it was salt.
Procedural history
Hager was charged in the district court with six firearm-possession offenses. The district court denied his motion to dismiss the mental-illness-based counts and instructed the jury that an unlawful user was a person who uses any controlled substance. The jury returned a general verdict convicting Hager on all six counts, and he appealed.
Remand instructions
The convictions on counts one through three were reversed. The convictions on counts four through six were reversed and remanded for a new trial before a correctly instructed jury.