State v. Stone

995 N.W.2d 617

STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Corey Lynden STONE, Appellant.

A21-1648

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Filed: September 27, 2023

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Lisa Lodin Peralta, Assistant Attorney General, Saint Paul, Minnesota; and Erica Madore, Mille Lacs County Attorney, Milaca, Minnesota, for respondent.

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Eva F. Wailes, Assistant State Public Defender, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for appellant.

OPINION

CHUTICH, Justice.

The issue in this case is whether a group of disassembled shotgun parts lacking a connecting stock bolt and washer is a "firearm" under the law that prohibits certain people convicted of a felony from possessing firearms, Minnesota Statutes section 609.165, subdivision 1b(a) (2022). Law enforcement investigators found a disassembled 20-gauge shotgun in a backpack belonging to appellant Corey Lynden Stone, who is ineligible to possess a firearm because he was previously convicted of a crime of violence. A forensic scientist with the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension used a bolt and a washer from a similar firearm to fully assemble and successfully fire the shotgun found in the backpack. A jury found Stone guilty of one count of possession of a firearm by an ineligible person under section 609.165, subdivision 1b(a). In a precedential opinion, the court of appeals affirmed Stone's conviction, concluding that a group of unassembled and incomplete shotgun parts is a "firearm" within the meaning of the statute, so long as it is possible to assemble the parts into a firearm as defined by case law. State v. Stone , 982 N.W.2d 500, 508 (Minn. App. 2022). Because a disassembled and incomplete shotgun can meet the plain language definition of a firearm under section 609.165, subdivision 1b(a), and the evidence here was sufficient to support Stone's conviction, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals.

FACTS

The following facts were presented during Stone's jury trial. Police investigators Michael Dieter and Bradley Gadbois drove past "a known drug house" during a routine patrol. The investigators observed a woman holding what appeared to be a hypodermic needle while seated in a sedan parked outside the house. Suspecting her of using heroin, Investigator Dieter went to speak with her.

Meanwhile, Investigator Gadbois approached three people seated in a van parked in the driveway of the house. As he spoke with the driver, Z.R., Investigator Gadbois suspected Z.R. of being deceitful. He also observed marks consistent with drug use on Z.R.’s face. Investigator Gadbois conducted a pat search of Z.R. that revealed a small baggie containing a white residue that appeared to be narcotics. The investigators then searched the van. Inside the van, the investigators discovered a blue hiking backpack that contained shotgun parts. Specifically, Investigator Dieter observed two shotgun barrels and "the remaining parts of a Mossberg 20 gauge" inside the backpack. One of the shotgun barrels appeared to have been sawed off. The backpack also contained a prescription labeled "Corey Lynden Stone" and a paystub in the name of Corey Stone. The backpack had a spot for a daypack to zip on and attach, but the daypack was missing.

Z.R. told the investigators that someone named "Coco" had recently borrowed the van. The investigators knew that Coco is Stone's nickname. ¹ Z.R. said that Coco left the blue hiking backpack in the van. He showed the investigators text messages that he exchanged with a contact named Coco, in which Z.R. said, "I need my van." ² Coco then sent several responses, including, "I hope you ain't tryna run off with all my sh*t like that homie ... Im over here flipping out pissed off right now ...."

While the investigators were questioning Z.R., Stone was not present in the van or at the house. Other officers located him at a nearby park and radioed his location to the investigators. When he approached Stone, Investigator Dieter observed that Stone was carrying the blue daypack that appeared to attach to the blue hiking backpack found in the van.

Stone is ineligible to possess a firearm based on a prior conviction for a crime of violence. Respondent State of Minnesota charged Stone with possession of a firearm by an ineligible person under Minnesota Statutes section 609.165, subdivision 1b(a).

The group of disassembled shotgun parts found in the blue hiking backpack was sent to the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension for examination. The group of parts included: (1) a shortened stock; (2) a shotgun receiver; ³ (3) two shotgun barrels (one full-length and one sawed-off); and (4) the piece of the sawed-off barrel. The shotgun parts were identified as a Mossberg Model 500C 20-gauge shotgun with serial number R534861. The Bureau of Criminal Apprehension report notes that it received the shotgun "disassembled" and that "the stock bolt and stock bolt washer ... were not present." According to the report, a forensic scientist took a bolt and bolt washer from a reference firearm and used the two items to assemble the stock to the receiver of the shotgun. The shotgun was test fired and "found to be functional."

The case proceeded to a jury trial. The State called three witnesses to testify: Investigator Dieter, Investigator Gadbois, and the officer who located Stone in the nearby park. Investigator Dieter testified that he did not believe the shotgun would have fit in the backpack without being disassembled; otherwise, it would have protruded from the top. The parties stipulated to the admission of the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension report into evidence. The State did not call a forensic scientist from the Bureau or any other expert witness to testify about the operability of the shotgun or the necessity of the added stock bolt and washer. Stone did not call any witnesses and did not testify.

The parties and the district court had several discussions regarding whether the shotgun parts were a "firearm" under Minnesota Statutes section 609.165 (2022). The district court concluded that the jury needed to decide whether the parts were a firearm under the statute. Stone argued that the jury should be instructed that the firearm here was incomplete due to the missing stock bolt and washer, and therefore it was "free to decide whether or not this particular firearm was a firearm because it was missing pieces."

The court did not give Stone's requested instruction. Instead, the jury received the following final instruction: " ‘Firearm.’ Means a device, whether operable or inoperable, loaded or unloaded, designed to be used as a weapon from which can be expelled a projectile by the force of any explosion or force of combustion." The district court declined to draw a distinction between "inoperable" and "incomplete," particularly because no testimony was offered on the necessity of the missing parts to the firearm's operability. The court noted that the distinction was "logic that the jurors can parse." During closing arguments, Stone's trial counsel highlighted that the group of shotgun parts was missing pieces and told the jury, "It's for you to decide whether this was a firearm." The jury found Stone guilty.

Stone raised several issues on appeal, including that the disassembled group of shotgun parts, which was missing a bolt and a washer, was not a "firearm" within the meaning of the illegal possession statute. In a precedential opinion, the court of appeals concluded that "the potential use of an unassembled firearm is sufficient to bring such a firearm within the meaning of prohibited possession under Minn. Stat. § 609.165, subd. 1b(a), so long as it is possible to assemble the firearm." Stone , 982 N.W.2d at 508. The court of appeals observed that a firearm has been defined by this court as "an instrument designed for attack or defense that expels a projectile by the action or force of gunpowder, combustion, or some other explosive force." Id. at 507 (quoting State v. Glover , 952 N.W.2d 190, 191 (Minn. 2020) ). Based on our precedent, the court of appeals observed that the operability of the instrument is immaterial to determining whether it is a firearm. Id. (citing LaMere v. State , 278 N.W.2d 552, 555–56 (Minn. 1979) ; Gerdes v. State , 319 N.W.2d 710, 712 (Minn. 1982) ). To address Stone's concern that "at some point, a ‘firearm’ missing components clearly ceases to be a firearm," the court of appeals concluded that the determination of what is a firearm is a question of fact for the jury and should be "based on jury instructions that define ‘firearm’ consistent with caselaw and explain that a group of unassembled firearm parts can constitute a firearm, so long as it [is] possible to assemble the firearm." Id. at 508–09.

We granted Stone's petition for further review.

ANALYSIS

Stone contends that the evidence supporting his conviction for illegal possession of a firearm is insufficient because a group of unassembled and incomplete shotgun parts is not a "firearm" within the meaning of section 609.165, subdivision 1b(a). A claim of insufficient evidence that turns on the meaning of the statute under which the defendant was convicted presents an issue of statutory interpretation that we review de novo. State v. Pakhnyuk , 926 N.W.2d 914, 920 (Minn. 2019). Once the statute is interpreted, we conduct "a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did." State v. Powers , 962 N.W.2d 853, 857–58 (Minn. 2021) (quoting State v. Webb , 440 N.W.2d 426, 430 (Minn. 1989) ). We address each part of this analysis in turn.

I.

Stone was convicted under Minnesota Statutes section 609.165, subdivision 1b(a), which states in relevant part: "Any person who has been convicted of a crime of violence, as defined in section 624.712, subdivision 5, and who ships, transports,...