Posts tagged "1102817"

Commonwealth v. Kang (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-028-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us   15-P-1731                                       Appeals Court   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  BYUNG-JIN KANG.     No. 15-P-1731.   Middlesex.     November 7, 2016. – March 16, 2017.   Present:  Cypher, Massing, & Sacks, JJ.     Firearms.  Evidence, Firearm.  Practice, Criminal, Instructions to jury.     Complaints received and sworn to in the Newton Division of the District Court Department on February 15, 2013, and June 9, 2014.   The cases were tried before Dyanne J. Klein, J.     Robert L. Sheketoff for the defendant. Susan Leigh Harris, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.     CYPHER, J.  The defendant, Byung-jin Kang, was convicted of carrying a loaded firearm without a license in violation of G. L. c. 269, § 10(n), and carrying a firearm without a license in violation of G. L. c. 269, § 10(a).  On appeal, the defendant claims that he was improperly denied the opportunity to present the affirmative defense of the “antique” firearm exemption from licensure requirements, arguing that (1) evidence related to his defense was excluded; and (2) the judge improperly denied his request for a jury instruction on the antique firearm exemption.  We affirm. Facts.[1]  The incident in question arises from a roadside confrontation between the defendant and another driver.[2]  During this confrontation, the second driver seized a firearm from the defendant and contacted police after the defendant left the scene in his vehicle.  Police recovered this firearm, a small silver revolver, from the pavement near the other driver, and located the defendant a short distance from the scene.  Officers discovered the firearm to be loaded, and later ballistic testing revealed it was capable of firing. At trial, the defendant did not contest possession.  He testified that the firearm was his, and that he was aware that it was loaded.  The defendant claimed, however, that the Commonwealth had failed to meet its burden to prove operability, arguing that the chain of custody evidence was insufficient, as were the qualifications of the police officer conducting the test-firing. Discussion.  1.  Exclusion of antique firearm evidence.  Prior to trial, the defendant indicated his intent to rely on the defense of exemption from the firearm licensure requirements for an antique firearm manufactured prior to 1900.[3]  See Commonwealth v. Jefferson, 461 Mass. 821 (2012).  In support of his defense, the defendant wanted to testify that he had purchased the firearm from “the online [Internet] store, antiqueguns.com,” from “a section […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - March 16, 2017 at 10:45 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,