STATE v NANOFF

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12439 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O MONTANA F 1973 THE STATE OF MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs - TAWRENCE KAZOR NANOFF, Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e E i g h t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable R. J . Nelson, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellant : B e r g e r , Anderson, S i n c l a i r and Murphy, B i l l t n g s , Montana. Arnold A . B e r g e r a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana. F o r Respondent : Hon. R o b e r t L. Woodahl, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , Montana. J. C Weingartner argued, A s s i s t a n t Attorney General, Helena, Montana. J. Fred Bourdeau, County A t t o r n e y , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana . . A p r i l 26, 1973 Submitted: Decided : Filed: MAY - 5 i3;"i -I RAY - 9 1913 M r . J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. T h i s i s an a p p e a l from a p o s t - t r i a l o r d e r of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of Cascade County r e f u s i n g t o r e t u r n i t e m s of p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y owned by d e f e n d a n t . Defendant Lawrence Kazor Nanoff was c o n v i c t e d of t h e crime of r e c e i v i n g s t o l e n p r o p e r t y , That c o n v i c t i o n was made p o s s i b l e by t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of v a r i o u s items s e i z e d under a s e a r c h w a r r a n t i s s u e d by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . Among t h e items s e i z e d were s t e r e o equipment, t e l e v i s i o n s e t s , and a number of guns and ammunition, some o f which had been s t o l e n , Also s e i z e d were some guns and ammunition which had n o t been s t o l e n , b u t belonged t o defendant. The c o n v i c t i o n was appealed t o t h i s Court and r e v e r s e d on t h e b a s i s of a f a u l t y search warrant. 502 P,2d 1138, 29 %.Rep, S t a t e v , Nanoff, Mon - t. 9 908. Defendant had been c o n v i c t e d of a p r e v i o u s f e l o n y , f i r s t degree burglary. He was sentenced t o two y e a r s imprisonment i n t h e Montana s t a t e p r i s o n . He was p a r o l e d on March 1 5 , 1950 and h i s s e n t e n c e e x p i r e d August 1 5 , 1950, A f t e r d e f e n d a n t ' s convicti.on was r e v e r s e d and s u b s e q u e n t l y d i s m i s s e d , h e moved t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t under s e c t i o n 95-715, R,C,M, 1947, t o r e t u r n t o him a l l h i s p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y ; n o t i n c l u d i n g a n y t h i n g proved t o have been s t o l e n , This p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y i n c l u d e d guns, ammunition, camera, r a d i o , c a s s e t t e t a p e r e c o r d e r and an 8 t r a c k s t e r e o s e t . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t r e f u s e d t o r e t u r n d e f e n d a n t ' s own p e r s o n a l guns and ammunition based on T i t l e 18, U.S.C.App, 5 1202, which p r o h i b i t s c o n v i c t e d f e l o n s from p o s s e s s i n g , receiving, o r transporting i n i n t e r s t a t e o r affecting i n t e r s t a t e commerce, any f i r e a r m . alternatives: The d i s t r i c t c o u r t o f f e r e d defendant two (1) t h a t defendant a s s i g n and d e l i v e r t h e guns t o h i s a t t o r n e y w i t h t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t t h e y n o t be r e t u r n e d t o d e f e n d a n t ; o r (2) t h a t defendant ask t h e c o u r t t o s e l l t h e i t e m s and have t h e proceeds t u r n e d over t o d e f e n d a n t , Defendant a p p e a l s t h i s o r d e r of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a s k i n g t h a t both o p t i o n s b e s t r i c k e n and t h e weapons r e t u r n e d t o him. The only i s s u e on t h i s appeal i s whether T i t l e 18, U.S.C. App. $1202 p r o h i b i t s a p p e l l a n t from owning f i r e a r m s . Section 1202(a) r e a d s i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : 1I Any person who---- "(1) h a s been convicted by a c o u r t of t h e Un.ited S t a t e s o r of a S t a t e o r any p o l i t i c a l s u b d i v i s i o n t h e r e o f of a f e l o n y , o r *** 11 and who r e c e i v e s , p o s s e s s e s , o r t r a n s p o r t s i n commerce o r a f f e c t i n g commerce, a f t e r t h e d a t e of enactment of t h i s Act, any f i r e a r m s h a l l be f i n e d n o t more than $10,000 o r imprisoned f o r n o t mare than two y e a r s , o r both." The d e c i s i o n o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , based upon t h e above quoted s t a t u t e was c e n t e r e d on t h e f a c t a p p e l l a n t was a convicted felon. There was no evidence t h a t a p p e l l a n t was i n any way a f f e c t i n g commerce by h i s possession o f t h e s e guns. S e c t i o n 1202 h a s been i n t e r p r e t e d by t h e United S t a t e s Supreme Court i n United S t a t e s v , Denneth Bass, 404 U , S , 3 3 6 , 92 S.Ct, 515, 30 L ed 2d 488, 491,497,498, decided December 20, The f a c t summation by t h e Court i s c o n c i s e and p e r t i n e n t : 1971. rI The evidence showed t h a t d e f e n d a n t , who had prev i o u s l y been convicted of a f e l o n y i n New York S t a t e , possessed on s e p a r a t e occasions a p i s t o l and then a shotgun. There was no a l l e g a t i o n i n t h e indictment and no attempt by t h e p r o s e c u t i o n t o show t h a t e i t h e r f i r e a r m had been possessed ' i n commerce o r a f f e c t i n g commercef. The Government proceeded on t h e assumption t h a t $ 1 2 0 2 ( a ) ( l ) banned a l l p o s s e s s i o n s and r e c e i p t s of f i r e a r m s by convicted f e l o n s , and t h a t no connection w i t h i n t e r s t a t e commerce had t o be demonstrated i n individual cases. " The Court r u l e d t h a t t h e t ~ o r d s"in commerce o r a f f e c t i n g commerce" a r e in-tended t o modify t h e t h r e e words "receives", 1r o r l l t r a n s p o r t s l r . I t then went on t o f i n d t h e r e was an ambiguity i n t h e s t a t u t e and t h a t when t h e r e a r e two i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s t h e Court w i l l adopt t h e one most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e defendant : I I Thus, where t h e r e i s ambiguity i n a c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e , doubts a r e r e s o l v e d i n favor of t h e defendant, Here, w e conclude t h a t Congress h a s n o t I p l a i n l y and unmistakably, t United S t a t e s v, Gradwell, 243 U 476, 4 8 5 , 61 L Ed S 857, 864, 37 S C t 487, made i t a f e d e r a l crime f o r a convicted f e l o n simply t o possess a gun a b s e n t some demonstrated nexus w i t h i n t e r s t a t e c o m ~ e r c eI.I The Court then commented on t h e F e d e r a l - S t a t e balance and i t s d e s i r e t o p r e s e r v e t h e same, I t emphasized t h a t i f t h e s t a t e s wanted t o pass l e g i s l a t i o n making possessi.on of a f i r e a r m a crime by a p a r t i c u l a r c l a s s of persons, they were f r e e t o do s o ; however, t h e Congress had n o t done so i n § 1202. Again, i n -> Bass t h e Court said : "Absent a c l e a r e r statement of i n t e n t i o n from Congress than i s p r e s e n t h e r e , w e do n o t i n t e r p r e t 5 1202(a) t o reach t h e I mere p o s s e s s i o n ' of f i r e arms, 1 l Based upon t h i s c l e a r mandate by t h e United S t a t e s Supreme Court, we can f i n d no a u t h o r i t y t o uphold t h e s t a t e ' s p o s i t i o n . I n i t s b r i e f t h e s t a t e d i d n o t attempt t o support t h e a c t i o n of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t based on any f e d e r a l law, Instead the s t a t e argues t h ~ s i n c e a p p e l l a n t i s a convicted f e l o n and h a s never t been pardoned, t h a t h e h a s l o s t h i s r i g h t t o own a g ~ m . T h i s Court does n o t s e e how t h a t argument a p p l i e s where, a s h e r e , t h e s t a t e went i n t o a p p e l l a n t ' s home on a f a u l t y search warrant and without a u t h o r i t y took personal. p r o p e r t y belonging t o a p p e l l a n t , The s t a t e contends i t does n o t have t o r e t u r n t h e p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y because a p p e l l a n t twenty y e a r s ago was convicted of a f e l o n y , N e i t h e r t h e reasoning of t h e s t a t e nor t h e a c t i o n taken by t h e d i . s t r i c t c o u r t i s supported by t h e law, W e t h e r e f o r e o r d e r t h a t t h e cause be remanded t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s o t h a t a l l of a p p e l l a n t ' s p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y now i n p o s s e s s i o n of t h e c o u r t be r e t u r n e d t o a p p e l l a n t a s provided i n s e c t i o n 95-715, R . C . N . 1947, / / \* -t. - - - 'chief Justice __-+. ,Associate Justices.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.