Summary
The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that a 2013 firearm amnesty law did not provide blanket immunity from prosecution during the 180-day amnesty period. Instead, it created an affirmative defense for qualifying defendants who unlawfully possessed a firearm on August 8, 2013 and timely transferred or voluntarily surrendered it in accordance with N.J.S.A. 2C:39-12. Because Dasean Harper failed to raise the defense at trial, the Court held that he waived it, reversed the Appellate Division’s judgment, and reinstated his conviction and sentence for unlawful possession of a weapon.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the 2013 firearm-amnesty provision created blanket immunity from prosecution for unlawful possession of a handgun throughout the 180-day amnesty period.
- Whether the amnesty provision instead created an affirmative defense available only to a person who unlawfully possessed a firearm on the statute's effective date and timely transferred or voluntarily surrendered it in compliance with N.J.S.A. 2C:39-12.
- Whether Harper waived the amnesty defense by failing to provide notice and present it at trial.
- Whether the trial court properly vacated Harper's conviction based on the amnesty provision.
Holdings
- The amnesty provision did not grant blanket immunity for the entire 180-day period. It created a limited period during which persons who unlawfully possessed firearms could transfer or voluntarily surrender them without prosecution, subject to the statute's terms.
- A defendant charged under N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b) or (c) may assert the amnesty provision as an affirmative defense by proving that the defendant unlawfully possessed the firearm on August 8, 2013, the statute's effective date, and took steps during the 180-day period to transfer or voluntarily surrender it in compliance with N.J.S.A. 2C:39-12 before charges were brought or an investigation began.
- A defendant must provide pretrial notice of an amnesty defense and present it at trial; failure to do so waives the defense, and the defense cannot be raised for the first time after a jury verdict.
- The trial court erred by vacating Harper's conviction for unlawful possession of a weapon because Harper did not raise the amnesty defense at trial and did not present proof that he satisfied the statutory requirements.
Key quotations
“The amnesty law did not afford defendants blanket immunity for the entire amnesty period.” (229 N.J. at 229)
“Instead, the law created a period of no more than six months during which people could dispose of weapons they illegally possessed without being prosecuted.” (229 N.J. at 229)
“As with other affirmative defenses, a defendant must raise the defense at trial or it is waived.” (229 N.J. at 229)
“A defendant charged under that statute for possession during the amnesty period may raise the amnesty law as an affirmative defense.” (229 N.J. at 241)
Factual background
On November 29, 2013, a police officer stopped a box truck in Pennsville after observing that it was parked in the wrong direction and partially in the roadway. The officer learned that Harper had outstanding arrest warrants, arrested him, and recovered a loaded Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum revolver and hollow-point bullets from his waistband; Harper had a Florida concealed-carry permit. Harper was indicted and convicted in New Jersey, but later argued that the 2013 firearm-amnesty provision made his possession lawful.
Procedural history
A Salem County grand jury indicted Harper for second-degree unlawful possession of a handgun and fourth-degree possession of hollow-point bullets. The trial court denied his pretrial motion to dismiss, and a jury convicted him; the court imposed sentence. Harper first raised the amnesty provision in support of bail pending appeal. On remand, the trial court interpreted the provision as allowing possession for the 180-day period and vacated the handgun conviction, while the Appellate Division denied the State's motions for leave to appeal and a stay. The Supreme Court reversed, reinstated the conviction and sentence for unlawful possession of a weapon, and remanded to the Appellate Division for outstanding issues.
Remand instructions
The trial court's order was reversed, and Harper's conviction and sentence for unlawful possession of a weapon were reinstated. The matter was remanded to the Appellate Division to address any outstanding issues.