Judge denies motion to dismiss case against Philly mom arrested for legal gun in NJ

C

Cnon

New member
A New Jersey judge denied a motion to dismiss charges Tuesday against a Philadelphia mother who mistakenly entered New Jersey, where she was stopped for a traffic violation and found in possession of a handgun loaded with hollow-point bullets.


And according to the article:
Superior Court Judge Michael Donio also denied a motion to overturn a decision not to allow Allen to participate in a pretrial intervention program to avoid jail time
Click to expand...



More here: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/0...se-against-philly-mom-arrested-for-legal-gun/


For discussion, Was the judge right not to dismiss the charges? I say no.


Cnon
 
First of all, Allen didn't mistakenly enter NJ. She was headed to Atlantic City for her son's birthday. Atlantic County (where she was stopped) and Atlantic City are on the EAST side of the state. Philly is WEST of the state. Allen did not mistakenly enter the state and drive more than 20 miles east. From the article you cited...

She was headed to Atlantic City, N.J., in the early-morning hours to prepare for her son’s birthday party, which was being held three days later.
Click to expand...

The laws in question have been in place for a lot of years. Allen had her permit for several months and had gun training before all this happen and as a Philly resident certainly should have known or been warned about venturing into NJ. As a licensee, it was her responsibility to know carry laws where she would be if she was carrying.
http://www.ammoland.com/2014/07/njs...trol-claims-yet-another-victim/#axzz37mQ4rlEH

So should the case have been dismissed? Given that she admitted to the cop that she was in possession of contraband (a gun she did not have a permit to carry in NJ) and also had banned ammo, NO. The case is valid. She intentionally and knowingly brought her gun and ammo into New Jersey where she planned to be for multiple days with it.

Do you know the specific argument for why the case was argued to be dismissed?
 
This is a local case for me, and I've checked out the facts.

It's actually out of the judge's hands. She is charged with illegally carrying a concealed handgun (because NJ doesn't recognize any other state's permits. Nor does NJ issue CCP's.) NJ law mandates 3 1/2 to 5 years prison for that. As long as the prosecutor sustains this charge, there's nothing the judge can do. It sucks for this girl...in this case.

Note: I believe part of what happened is when she got pulled over for whatever infraction, she offered up to the polizei that she was carrying a handgun. (In accordance with PA law? because that's where her permit was issued.) Had she just kept to herself, she wouldn't have this problem. Not to mention, familiarizing herself with CC laws of other states she's traveling through. Especially this draconian neighboring state.
 
From the linked article:
"According to Nappen, potential jurors could invoke jury nullification, a constitutional doctrine allowing juries to acquit defendants who are technically guilty, but don't deserve to be punished. It can apply in all states, but attorneys are generally not permitted to introduce the concept to jurors."

Well, if the case gets enough news coverage with that statement, the attorney won't have to introduce it.
 
Wouldn't matter in NJ anyway as you'd never get enough people on the jury to agree to it. This is a very unfriendly state for gun owners.
 
True, but it only takes one to have a hung jury. And jury pools in South Jersey are a totally different makeup than in other parts. But I still wouldn't put any money on her getting off.
 
I don't know anything specifically about New Jersey law but most states do not allow judges to dismiss charges over objection except under limited circumstances. Some examples: (1) a serious defect in the charge itself (it fails to charge an offense), (2) serious proprietorial misconduct, (3) certain serious defects in grand jury proceedings, (4) immunity, and (5) charges which violate certain types of constitutional protections. This latter category would include charges that violate the first amendment or double jeopardy.

Also, at the preliminary level a judge may dismiss a charge where there is no probable cause, a fairly low level for the government to meet. In many (most?) jurisdictions, a grand jury indictment provides probable cause and trumps a judge's earlier determination.

Here, the charges seem to be based on adequate facts. The only question at issue in my mind is the prosecutor's discretion in handing them.
 
Do you know the specific argument for why the case was argued to be dismissed?
Click to expand...

The argument was that she did not intend to break the law and it's obvious that she didn't intend to do so. Intent is a good reason to dismiss the case but the Judge, with staunch influence from the prosecutor, chose not to.

The prosecutor's main reason for ignoring intent, and not allowing leniency, is to use her as an example for others who might do the same thing. I doubt that making someone, who did not intend to break the law, an example is a legitimate reason for furthering prosecution.

Should she have known better? Yes. Did she intend to break the law? No.

I've lost track of how many times I've brought a case for a criminal charge with plenty of evidence before a county/city commissioner's office and they refused to do anything stating lack of intent, unless....... there was a gun involved.

This NJ prosecutor is playing politics and his target is PA's gun carry laws.

Judges and prosecutor's are allowed to use discretion but too often politics are put above common sense. There's a big problem when the law is deemed to be more important than the people it's intended to protect.
 
I'm curious why her PTI was denied, it would have saved her jail time and the prosecutor now looks like he's on a power trip.
The real travesty is that she'll be looking at more time than your common NJ gangbanger for even worse crimes. Remember the guy shot at the NJ mall not long ago? The bangers who did it basically were in and out of prison in short stints for years, only to re-offend and kill someone this time.
 
First of all, I don't like the laws in question. Whether I like them or not does not matter.

The argument was that she did not intend to break the law and it's obvious that she didn't intend to do so. Intent is a good reason to dismiss the case but the Judge, with staunch influence from the prosecutor, chose not to.
Click to expand...

Intent to break the law isn't a condition of being in violation of this law. However, she apparently knowingly did intend to travel with her gun for protection and she intended to take it into NJ and did so. So "intent" appears satisfied and is not being ignored, at least in regard to Shaneen Allen getting due process.
 
Intent to break the law isn't a condition of being in violation of this law. However, she apparently knowingly did intend to travel with her gun for protection and she intended to take it into NJ and did so. So "intent" appears satisfied and is not being ignored, at least in regard to Shaneen Allen getting due process.
Click to expand...

Intending to travel with her gun to NJ is different from intent to break NJ's gun law. Intent means that she was aware of the law and ignored it. She showed the officer her PA permit and told him that she had the gun. She wasn't trying to hide anything, thinking that it was ok to carry there.

You can claim that she should have researched the law but you can't claim that she intentionally broke the law.
 
jbrown50 said:
...Intent means that she was aware of the law and ignored it...
Click to expand...
Cite competent legal authority to support that claim. Different crimes can in fact require different types or levels of "intent." Some crimes require that the actor know that his act is illegal.

But for other crimes, perhaps entering New Jersey with a loaded gun, the intent required is merely that the actor knew he had a loaded gun and knew he was bringing it into New Jersey. That might well be the case when one's mistake is an error of law, i. e., not being aware that entering New Jersey under such circumstances is against the law, rather than a mistake of fact, i. e., not knowing he had a loaded gun with him.
 
Quote:
Intent to break the law isn't a condition of being in violation of this law. However, she apparently knowingly did intend to travel with her gun for protection and she intended to take it into NJ and did so. So "intent" appears satisfied and is not being ignored, at least in regard to Shaneen Allen getting due process.
Intending to travel with her gun to NJ is different from intent to break NJ's gun law. Intent means that she was aware of the law and ignored it. She showed the officer her PA permit and told him that she had the gun. She wasn't trying to hide anything, thinking that it was ok to carry there.
Click to expand...

You can claim that she should have researched the law but you can't claim that she intentionally broke the law.
Click to expand...
This is a perfect example of the old adage "Ignorance of the law is no defense." Ignorance of the facts, on the other hand, can be a defense.

For example, if unbeknownst to her, someone put a handgun in her trunk. She drove into NJ with that handgun, but did not know she was doing so. If that handgun is discovered in he "possession" and she is charged, she may have a defense that she didn't know she was breaking the law. That is, she didn't know that there was a handgun in her trunk. Another example could be that she didn't know she had crossed into NJ.

But if you knowingly do what you do, even if you don't know that it is against the law, you lack of knowledge of the law (or mistaken belief that the law is different than it is) is no defense. As noted above, intent is not an element of the law she is charged with breaking.
 
I should have added that sometimes a "knowledge" requirement is satisfied if one either knew or upon reasonable inquiry would know.

In general one can not properly discuss the type or level of "intent" required for a particular crime without reference to the actual law, especially case law.
 
What kind of person would do this to a peaceable citizen who made a simple mistake with no criminal intent??? There used to be a concept that you had to have Criminal Intent to be charged with a crime. We have developed an ENFORCER CASTE that seems more interested in destroying the lives of decent people than dealing with the criminals. There are murderers who serve less than she is facing. Any human would have offered her the opportunity to unload and lock it in the trunk and sent her on her way. This is what Ayne Rand warned us about. It is sad that the police have become a bigger threat than the criminals ever could be.
 
hvymax said:
...There used to be a concept that you had to have Criminal Intent to be charged with a crime....
Click to expand...
Again, that is not accurate. As I, Armorer-at-Law and Double Naught Spy have been explaining, it is not, nor has it ever been, nearly that simplistic.

Many people think that many laws are excessive or bad policy or just plain wrong. Those are complaints which need to be addressed to legislatures.

But it's desirable to have a better understanding of basic principles of the law and not perpetuate fallacious beliefs.
 
One of these days the Supreme Court is going to get a case involving recognition of state permits and licenses across state lines. Could be another homosexual marriage case, could be concealed carry. Either one, there will be a national recognition decision coming our way.
 
Marriage variants are not part of our discussion.

As far as one state ignoring its law because of another state - don't hold your breath. Nor will the Scotus one day make all gun laws go away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top