State v. Radan, 143 Wash. 2d 323

Summary

The Supreme Court of Washington held that Montana's automatic restoration of a convicted person's civil rights did not, by itself, exempt him from Washington's felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm statute. However, the defendant's early discharge from supervision, together with the restoration of rights, constituted an equivalent procedure based on a finding of rehabilitation under RCW 9.41.040(3). The court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed dismissal of the firearm-possession charge.

Holdings

1. Montana's automatic restoration of civil rights, standing alone, did not constitute an 'other equivalent procedure' based on a finding of rehabilitation or innocence under RCW 9.41.040(3).
2. Radan's early discharge from supervision under Montana Criminal Code § 46-23-1011, combined with the discharge letter and Montana's automatic restoration provisions, constituted an 'other equivalent procedure' based on a finding of rehabilitation under RCW 9.41.040(3).
3. The rule of lenity did not apply because RCW 9.41.040(3) was unambiguous as to the requirement that an equivalent procedure be based on a finding of rehabilitation or innocence.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Montana's automatic restoration of Radan's civil rights, including firearm rights, constituted an 'other equivalent procedure' under RCW 9.41.040(3).
2. Whether Radan's early discharge from supervision, together with Montana's restoration of civil rights, was based on a finding of rehabilitation sufficient to exempt him from Washington's felon-in-possession statute.
3. Whether the rule of lenity applied to the interpretation of RCW 9.41.040(3).

Disposition

reversed