sentencing guidelines question

imported post

My friend and no it wasn’t me was ticketed for discharge of a fire arm in Port Angeles. I’ve looked on the internet and couldn’t find what the sentencing guidelines are. I know it’s a misdemeanor and wanted to know if it was just a fine or county jail time. He has no criminal record and doesn’t carry that gun anymore due to it firing when he bumped a counter and the firing pin engaged.(hammerless gun). All the police reports state that it was an accidental discharge (and there records showed this model had a history for that.) but due to it happening in a subway they had to charge him with something.



And the bullet ended up in his leg there was no damages to the place or anyone ells, only a 22 round.





Well any help would be appreciated. Thanks and try not to dog him to much but I understand due to what happened there will be some.

imported post

was this a phoenix hp-22?

imported post

WTF happened to intent?


Ala Mens Rhea?

imported post

If this took place in Port Angeles, rather than the PA area of Clallam County then he would probably have been charged under PAMC 9.41.020:

9.42.010 Discharging Firearms. It shall be unlawful for any person to fire or discharge any gun pistol or firearm of any type within the City of Port Angeles provided that this Section shall not apply to peace officers engaged in the lawful performance of their duties or persons discharging starting guns at athletic events or to persons target shooting at a duly licensed shooting gallery in a carnival, circus, fair, parade or unless otherwise allowed by ordinances of City or State or specifically authorized in writing by the Chief of Police. Discharging firearms shall be a Class II misdemeanor.
(Ord. 2447 § 1, 6/16/1987)

Click to expand...

A Class II misdemeanor is a city defined classification. Charges under the RCW's would either be a misdemeanor or a gross misdemeanor.

9.01.070 Classes of Crimes. An offense defined by this Title constitutes a misdemeanor of the first class or a misdemeanor of the second class. A Class I misdemeanor may be punished by either fine or imprisonment, or both, up to the maximum sentence allowed under the jurisdiction of the court in which the charge is filed. A Class II misdemeanor may be punished by a maximum fine of one thousand dollars. A sentence of imprisonment shall not be imposed for any Class II misdemeanor. (Ord. 2442, 5/11/987; Ord. 2220 § 1, 6/29/1982; Ord. 2213 § 1 5/4/1982; Ord. 2129, 4/11/981)

Click to expand...

So, it looks like the most he'll be on the hook for would be a fine and maybe court costs.

imported post

thanks gene that was exactly what I was searching for. I will tell him I think he will be relieved to know its only going to cost money and not his job for being put in jail and missing work.

I'll find out what he was carrying to sempercarry

imported post

If an act is committed by accident, then it lacks Mens Rea, and there should be no criminal culpability. Even homicide has an exception for "by accident."

imported post

I would say if the firearm went off without his interaction (bumped a table?) then there is no crime. He should have a good lawyer and fight the charge.

imported post

sirpuma wrote:

I would say if the firearm went off without his interaction (bumped a table?) then there is no crime. He should have a good lawyer and fight the charge.

Click to expand...

And a check by a good gunsmith

imported post

I would look over this. Haven't read the whole thing yet, but it is arguing that accident counts for assault 1 (assault with firearm et al) even though the statutes only specify that it is a defense for homicide. Appellate courts have upheld this.
There is also the theme of "lesser included offenses," and discharge of a firearms seems to be a lesser included offense in homicide.
I'll see what else I can find.
I'd advise your friend to plead not guilty if it's not too late.

http://www.courts.wa.gov/content/Briefs/A02/342073 reply appellent.pdf

I'll see what else I can find.

imported post

While I'm at it, recall the the Fishorman case won because Ellensburg didn't have a clause about CPL holders (I think) or some unrelated thing like that that made it incompatible with RCWs 9.41.290/300. These specify that ordinances against discharging a firearm may not preclude self-defense, and Port Angeles' statute doesn't have a clause permitting self-defense, so therefore is incompatible with RCWs 9.41.290/300.

imported post

cynicist wrote:

If an act is committed by accident, then it lacks Mens Rea, and there should be no criminal culpability. Even homicide has an exception for "by accident."

Click to expand...

Your legal acumen is slightly off. SOME crimes have an intent element, some don't.

The crime stated is classified as a strict liability crime. Did you do it? Is there a legal defense (self-defense, necessity, etc.)? If yes to the first and no to the second you are guilty regardless of what you intended. "I did it on accident" is not a defense to a strict liability crime.

If the crime said "intentionally fired a weapon..." then intent would be important and an accident would not be held against you. But here that is not the case.

-adamsesq

imported post

cynicist wrote:

While I'm at it, recall the the Fishorman case won because Ellensburg didn't have a clause about CPL holders (I think) or some unrelated thing like that that made it incompatible with RCWs 9.41.290/300. These specify that ordinances against discharging a firearm may not preclude self-defense, and Port Angeles' statute doesn't have a clause permitting self-defense, so therefore is incompatible with RCWs 9.41.290/300.

Click to expand...

.300 specifically authorizes them to create ordinances that restrict the discharge where there is a reasonable likelihood that humans, animals, or property will be jeapordized.

This is why it does not have to be inline with the RCW's.

imported post

.300 specifically authorizes them to create ordinances that restrict the discharge where there is a reasonable likelihood that humans, animals, or property will be jeapordized. This is why it does not have to be inline with the RCW's.

Click to expand...

I think that's off on two points. One is that it says nothing about danger to others, and two it doesn't have an exception for self-defense.
If it "doesn't have to be" in line with the RCW (which is not possible,) then it falls within pre-emption.

I haven't found it yet, but I'm sure there is case law regarding accident as a defense to unlawful discharge. I did find that drive-by shooting and reckless endangerment have accident exceptions, and unlawful discharge is a "lesser included offense" to reckless endangerment, the only difference is how likely you are to hit someone.

If it is a liability offense, the irony is that if the bullet had killed someone, he would be not-guilty, but since it didn't, it's a misdemeanor.

imported post

... due to it happening in a subway they had to charge him with something.

Click to expand...

Huh???



ETA: by "Huh" I mean, "so there's something special in the PA municipal code that singles out Subway for special treatment?"

imported post

cynicist wrote:

.300 specifically authorizes them to create ordinances that restrict the discharge where there is a reasonable likelihood that humans, animals, or property will be jeapordized. This is why it does not have to be inline with the RCW's.

Click to expand...

I think that's off on two points. One is that it says nothing about danger to others, and two it doesn't have an exception for self-defense.
If it "doesn't have to be" in line with the RCW (which is not possible,) then it falls within pre-emption.

Click to expand...

There is an exemption for self defense in it and because the code is authorized explicitly by .300 it does not have to be in line with any RCW to be a valid ordinance. PA only needs to believe that there is a likelihood that humans, animals, or property will be jeopardized and they do not have to spell it out in their code.

imported post

adamsesq wrote:

cynicist wrote:

If an act is committed by accident, then it lacks Mens Rea, and there should be no criminal culpability. Even homicide has an exception for "by accident."

Click to expand...

Your legal acumen is slightly off. SOME crimes have an intent element, some don't.

The crime stated is classified as a strict liability crime. Did you do it? Is there a legal defense (self-defense, necessity, etc.)? If yes to the first and no to the second you are guilty regardless of what you intended. "I did it on accident" is not a defense to a strict liability crime.

If the crime said "intentionally fired a weapon..." then intent would be important and an accident would not be held against you. But here that is not the case.

-adamsesq

Click to expand...

Some laws that do not specify a mens rea are classified as strict liability. Others, however, have had a knowingly elemnet written into them by the courts, under a due process argument.

imported post

_____________update________________

friend is getting a lawyer

He went to court today and the deffence eterney was reading her statment, she was laughing and giggleing when she was reading the chardges like it was a big joke and was saying he had intent of fireing the firearm in city limmits. Whenmy friendasked the judge what the intent was he replied the intent was you were carrying a fire arm in city limits and it firedwithin city limits.

next date is on the 6th of may

imported post

So they believe he intended to shoot himself in the leg?

imported post

Granum wrote:

_____________update________________

friend is getting a lawyer

He went to court today and the defense attorney was reading her statement, she was laughing and giggling when she was reading the charges like it was a big joke and was saying he had intent of firing the firearm in city limits. Whenmy friendasked the judge what the intent was he replied the intent was you were carrying a fire arm in city limits and it firedwithin city limits.

next date is on the 6th of may

Click to expand...

That's pretty F'd because he "was carrying" a pistol that means the "he planned on shooting". By that judges logic all of us who carry in public discharge our weapons at least once. I think there's a difference between intent to use something and being prepared to use something. I have a vacuum not because I intend to make messes but because if I make a mess I'll be able to clean it up. She goes from Intent to carry to intent to fire that's really stretching it.

imported post

TechnoWeenie wrote:

WTF happened to intent?


Ala Mens Rhea?

Click to expand...

"intent' isn't the only "Mens Rea" that we have.

First off, the RCW has multiple crimes in which there is no Mens Rea. Possession of a controlled substance, for example, is a crime where there doesn't have to be an intent.

Second, Mens Rea refers to the latin phrase stating the body is not guilty of an act if the mind is not guilty. We have multiple crimes in which that is not true. Manslaughter, for example, is a crime where you don't mean to kill someone, but someone dies due to an act you caused. You don't have to prove intent to arrest on manslaughter. Negligent driving is another example. Hell, the wording implies that the person didn't intend to drive that way, they were negligent wether intentionally or unintentionally, it doesn't matter. Well, it kind of does. If you can prove the person was intentionally negligent, then it becomes reckless driving.

Third, our RCW outlines that crimes can be committed without intent. RCW 9A.08.010 specifically spells out our mental states. We've got 4, Intent, Knowledge, Recklessness, and Criminal Negligence. There doesn't have to be a Mens Rea for every crime, because our RCW was designed to address the fact that not every person who screws up, intends to.

Fourth, you ask where's the intent. I have addressed the flaw with that argument above, but let's actually look at how mental states are assessed. Generally, in the RCW, if a crime is to be punished due to the Mens Rea, it will state that in the RCW. For example, RCW 9A.32.050, Murder in the second dgree states:

(1) A person is guilty of murder in the second degree when:

(a) With intent to cause the death of another person but without premeditation, he or she causes the death of such person or of a third person; or

Click to expand...

There are other ways to commit Murder 2, but most of them lack the same kind of Mens Rea specifically stated in section A. You see that section A specifically states "with intent," meaning this particular crime has to have a Mens Rea to be sustained.

Fifth, the Port Angeles Code states:

942010 DischargingFirearms It shall be unlawful for any person to fire or discharge any
gun pistol or firearm of any type within the City of Port Angeles provided that this Section shall not
apply to peace officers engaged in the lawful performance of their duties or persons discharging
starting guns at athletic events or to persons target shooting at a duly licensed shooting gallery in a
carnival circus fair parade or unless otherwise allowed by ordinances of City or State or specifically
authorized in writing by the Chief of Police Discharging firearms shall be a Class II misdemeanor

Click to expand...

You will notice that nowhere in there does it state you have to intend to discharge a firearm. The mere act of discharging a firearm within the city is enough to be arrested. The mental state can be argued at court and MAY get him off, but frankly...shooting yourself in the leg is pretty negligent. I'd say that satisfies the culpability test.

Finally, if you search online you will find that the courts have consistently ruled that the lack of intent does not fail the culpability test.