powell v. tompkins, 1st cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 Powell v. Tompkins, 1st Cir. (2015)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/powell-v-tompkins-1st-cir-2015 1/63

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 1310

AARON POWELL,

Pet i t i oner , Appel l ant ,

v.

STEVEN TOMPKI NS,

SHERI FF, SUFFOLK COUNTY,

Respondent , Appel l ee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

FOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Wi l l i am G. Young, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Tor r uel l a, Howar d and Thompson,

Ci r cui t J udges.

K. Hayne Bar nwel l , by appoi nt ment of t he cour t , f or appel l ant .Susanne G. Rear don, Assi st ant At t or ney Gener al , Cr i mi nal

Bur eau, Appeal s Di vi si on, wi t h whom Mar t ha Coakl ey, At t or neyGener al , was on br i ef f or appel l ee.

Apr i l 15, 2015



HOWARD, Circuit Judge. Pet i t i oner Aar on Powel l was

convi ct ed on sever al st at e char ges i ncl udi ng unl awf ul possessi on of

a l oaded f i r ear m, see Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 269, §§ 10( a) , ( h) , ( n) ,

and hi s convi ct i ons were af f i r med by t he Massachuset t s Supr eme

J udi ci al Cour t ( SJ C) , see Commonweal t h v. Powel l , 946 N. E. 2d 114

( Mass. 2011) . Powel l t hen sought f eder al habeas rel i ef pur suant t o

28 U. S. C. § 2254, whi ch was deni ed by t he di st r i ct cour t . I n t hi s

appeal f r om t hat deni al , he pr i mar i l y pr ot est s t he st at e cr i mi nal

pr ocedur e r equi r ement t hat a def endant accused of unl awf ul

possessi on of a f i r ear mbear t he bur den of pr oduci ng evi dence of a

pr oper l i cense as an af f i r mat i ve def ense. The absence of such

pr of f er ed evi dence gi ves r i se t o a pr esumpt i on dur i ng t r i al t hat

t he def endant di d not have a val i d l i cense; but , i f pr oduced, t he

pr osecut i on has t he bur den of pr ovi ng beyond a reasonabl e doubt

t hat t he def ense does not exi st . See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, § 7;

Commonweal t h v. J ones, 361 N. E. 2d 1308 ( 1977) . The SJ C concl uded

t hat t hi s st ate pr ocedur e compor t s wi t h f eder al due pr ocess, and we

hol d t hat Powel l has f ai l ed t o est abl i sh t hat t he st at e cour t

deci si on conf l i ct s wi t h cl ear l y est abl i shed Supr eme Cour t

pr ecedent . I n addi t i on, Powel l advances Second Amendment cl ai ms,

and a r el at ed Equal Pr ot ect i on cl ai m. We hol d t hat t hese cl ai ms

al so pr ovi de no basi s f or di st ur bi ng hi s st at e convi ct i ons.

Fi nal l y, we deemwai ved hi s Si xth Amendment i nef f ect i ve assi st ance

-2-



f ence t o evade t he of f i cer s, he dr opped a . 22 cal i ber r evol ver t o

t he gr ound. Powel l t hen r an al ong t he f ence and i nt o a darkened

garage. He soon emerged wi t h both hands cl enched i n f i st s,

char gi ng at one of t he of f i cer s. The of f i cer moved out of t he way,

Powel l knocked i nt o t he second of f i cer , and t he f oot chase

cont i nued down t he st r eet . The pol i ce soon caught up wi t h Powel l

and ar r est ed hi m. The l oaded r evol ver was r et r i eved f r om wher e

Powel l had at t empt ed t o scal e t he f ence. Wi t hout f i r st i ssui ng

Mi r anda warni ngs, an of f i cer asked hi m why he ran and whether he

had a l i cense f or t he f i r ear m. Powel l r epl i ed t hat he di d not have

a f i r ear m.

The Commonweal t h of Massachuset t s char ged Powel l wi t h

sever al st at e cr i mes. He wai ved hi s r i ght t o a j ur y t r i al and,

af t er a bench pr oceedi ng, was convi ct ed of publ i cl y car r yi ng a

f i r ear m wi t hout a l i cense, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 269, § 10( a) ; doi ng

so whi l e t he f i r ear m was l oaded, i d. ch. 269, § 10( n) ; and

possessi ng ammuni t i on wi t hout a per mi t , i d. ch. 269, § 10( h) . He

was sent enced t o ei ght een mont hs of i ncarcerat i on and t hr ee years

of pr obat i on f or t he f i r ear ms and ammuni t i on of f enses. 1

1 Powel l al so was convi ct ed f or r esi st i ng ar r est , whi ch i s nota par t of t hi s habeas pet i t i on. Addi t i onal l y, al t hough i t appear s

f r om t he r ecord t hat Powel l has now compl et ed hi s sent ence, hef i l ed hi s pet i t i on chal l engi ng t he l egal i t y of hi s f i r ear msconvi ct i ons bef or e hi s sent ence concl uded. We f i nd t hat hi spet i t i on i s nei t her moot nor beyond t he j ur i sdi ct i onal r each of 28U. S. C. § 2254( a) . See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U. S. 1, 7- 8 ( 1998) ;Car af as v. LaVal l ee, 391 U. S. 234, 237- 38 ( 1968) ; see al soLef kowi t z v. Fai r , 816 F. 2d 17, 19 ( 1st Ci r . 1987) .

-4-



Whi l e Powel l ' s appeal t o t he st at e i nt er medi at e appeal s

cour t was pendi ng, t he Uni t ed St ates Supr eme Cour t deci ded McDonal d

v. Ci t y of Chi cago, i n whi ch i t hel d t hat t he Second Amendment

r i ght t o keep and bear ar ms appl i es t o t he st at es t hr ough t he

Four t eent h Amendment . 561 U. S. 742, 130 S. Ct . 3020, 3042 ( 2010) .

On i t s own mot i on, t he case was t r ansf err ed t o t he SJ C, whi ch

af f i r med Powel l ' s convi ct i ons. See Powel l , 946 N. E. 2d 118.

Per t i nent her e, t he SJ C r ej ect ed Powel l ' s due pr ocess

chal l enge t o t he Commonweal t h' s f ai l ur e t o pr esent evi dence t hat he

l acked a f i r ear ms l i cense. I d. at 124. Fol l owi ng i t s own

pr ecedent , t he cour t hel d t hat t he accused has t he bur den of

pr oduci ng evi dence of a l i cense as an af f i r mat i ve def ense i n

pr osecut i ons f or f i r ear ms possessi on and car r yi ng of f enses. I d.

I t al so hel d t hat t hi s st at e pr ocedur e i s i n accor d wi t h due

pr ocess because t he bur den of pr ovi ng an el ement of t he cr i me di d

not shi f t t o t he def endant . I d. ( r el yi ng on J ones, 361 N. E. 2d

1308) .

I n addi t i on, t he SJ C decl i ned t o assess t he mer i t s of

Powel l ' s cl ai m t hat st at e l aw age r est r i ct i ons on young adul t s'

abi l i t y t o obt ai n a l i cense t o publ i cl y car r y a f i r ear mvi ol at e t he

Second Amendment and t he Equal Protect i on Cl ause of t he Four t eent h

Amendment . I d. at 128. The st ate cour t vi ewed hi s age- based

chal l enges as pr ocedur al l y bar r ed, essent i al l y because Powel l di d

not demonst r ate that hi s l ack of l i censure was based on t he mi ni mum

-5-



age r equi r ement al one. I d. at 129- 30. The SJ C excused Powel l ' s

f ai l ur e t o r ai se hi s Second Amendment ar gument s i n a pr et r i al

mot i on because t he i ssues wer e not avai l abl e t o hi m unt i l af t er

McDonal d was deci ded. I d. at 127.

Last l y, t he SJ C r ej ected Powel l ' s i nef f ect i ve assi st ance

of counsel cl ai m, whi ch was based on t r i al counsel ' s f ai l ur e t o

f i l e a mot i on t o suppr ess Powel l ' s pr e- Mi r anda st at ement t o t he

pol i ce denyi ng t hat he had possessed a gun. The cour t concl uded

t hat any al l egedl y def i ci ent l egal r epr esent at i on caused Powel l no

pr ej udi ce due t o ot her evi dence of hi s consci ousness of gui l t . I d.

at 125.

Powel l l at er pur sued a § 2254 habeas pet i t i on i n f eder al

di st r i ct cour t , whi ch was deni ed. Powel l v. Tompki ns, 926 F. Supp.

2d 367 ( D. Mass. 2013) . We consi der t he mer i t s of t he f ederal

habeas pet i t i on de novo. See Pena v. Di ckhaut , 736 F. 3d 600, 603

( 1st Ci r . 2013) .

II. Discussion

Secur i ng r el i ef under t he Ant i t er r or i sm and Ef f ect i ve

Deat h Penal t y Act of 1996 ( "AEDPA") i s an onerous t ask. See Pub. L.

No. 104- 132, § 104, 110 St at . 1214, 1218- 1219, codi f i ed at 28

U. S. C. § 2254; see al so Whi t e v. Woodal l , 134 S. Ct . 1697, 1702

( 2014) ; Bur t v. Ti t l ow, 134 S. Ct . 10, 15- 16 ( 2013) . Powel l may

secur e r el i ef f or cl ai ms addr essed i n hi s di r ect appeal i f t he

st at e cour t ' s deci si on "was cont r ar y t o, or i nvol ved an

-6-



unr easonabl e appl i cat i on of , cl ear l y est abl i shed Feder al l aw, as

determi ned by" t he Supr eme Cour t , 28 U. S. C. § 2254( d) ( 1) . Onl y

l egal er r or s that ar e obj ect i vel y unr easonabl e war r ant r el i ef . See

Mi t chel l v. Espar za, 540 U. S. 12, 15- 16 ( 2003) ( expoundi ng on

"cont r ar y t o" prong) ; Ti t l ow, 134 S. Ct . at 16 ( expoundi ng on

"unr easonabl e appl i cat i on" pr ong) ; see al so Woodal l , 134 S. Ct . at

1702, 1706 ( emphasi zi ng t hat "even ' cl ear er r or ' wi l l not suf f i ce"

and r ej ect i ng an "unr easonabl e- r ef usal - t o- ext end r ul e" t hat was

di scussed i n ear l i er AEDPA cases) .

The Supreme Cour t ' s precedent , not t hat of t he ci r cui t

cour t s, serves as t he benchmar k f or secur i ng § 2254 r el i ef . Lopez

v. Smi t h, 135 S. Ct . 1, 3 ( 2014) ( per cur i am) ; see Espar za, 540

U. S. at 16 ( not i ng t hat a st ate cour t need not even be aware of

Supr eme Cour t pr ecedent s, "so l ong as nei t her t he r easoni ng nor t he

r esul t of t he st at e- cour t deci si on cont r adi ct s t hem") . Her e,

Powel l l ar gel y rest s on I n r e Wi nshi p, 397 U. S. 358 ( 1970) i n

suppor t of hi s Due Pr ocess cl ai m, and on Di st r i ct of Col umbi a v.

Hel l er , 554 U. S. 570 ( 2008) and McDonal d v. Ci t y of Chi cago, 561

U. S. 742 ( 2010) f or hi s Second Amendment and r el at ed Equal

Pr ot ect i on cl ai ms.

A. Due Process

I t i s bedr ock that t he Due Process Cl ause of t he

Four t eent h Amendment "pr otect s t he accused agai nst convi ct i on

except upon pr oof beyond a r easonabl e doubt of every f act necessary

-7-



t o const i t ut e t he cr i me wi t h whi ch he i s char ged. " Wi nshi p, 397

U. S. at 364. Powel l argues that under t hi s command, "a st ate may

not be rel i eved of pr ovi ng beyond a reasonabl e doubt t he el ement s

of l ack of a f i r ear ms l i cense and r egi st r at i on car d by i mposi ng a

so- cal l ed ' mi ni mal ' bur den of pr oduct i on upon t he def endant . " Wr i t

l ar ge, however , hi s cl ai m pr i mar i l y r est s on t he pr emi se t hat

absence of l i censur e i s an el ement of t he stat e cr i mi nal of f ense,

a posi t i on t hat r uns cont r ar y t o SJ C pr ecedent as exposi t ed i n

J ones and i t s progeny. Undet er r ed, he r el i es on t he t ext of t he

oper at i ve st at e st at ut es, sel ect st at e case l aw, and l anguage i n

hi s cr i mi nal compl ai nt t o suppor t hi s cont ent i on t hat t he pr oper

due pr ocess anal ysi s must account f or absence of l i cense as an

oper at i ve el ement of t he char ged f i r ear ms cr i mes.

To det er mi ne t he appropr i at e l ens t hat gover ns Powel l ' s

due pr ocess cl ai m, we begi n, as we must , wi t h Massachuset t s l aw.

See, e. g. , Medi na v. Cal i f or ni a, 505 U. S. 437, 445- 46 ( 1992)

( addr essi ng st at e l aw af f i r mat i ve def enses) ; Count y Cour t of Ul st er

Count y v. Al l en, 442 U. S. 140, 156- 60 ( 1979) ( addr essi ng st at e l aw

i nf er ences and pr esumpt i ons) ; see al so Mar shal l v. Br i st ol Super i or

Cour t , 753 F. 3d 10, 19 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( not i ng t hat t he f eder al

cour t i s "bound by t he st at e cour t ' s const r uct i on of i t s st at e

st at ut es and ot her i ssues of st at e l aw") .

To l awf ul l y possess and car r y a f i r earm wi t hi n t he

Commonweal t h a person must ei t her obt ai n a l i cense t o do so or be

-8-



exempt f r omt he nor mal l i censi ng r equi r ement s. See gener al l y Mass.

Gen. Laws ch. 140, §§ 121- 131P; Hi ght ower v. Ci t y of Bost on, 693

F. 3d 61, 65 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( sur veyi ng Massachuset t s l aw) . The

cat egor i es of per mi t s t hat wer e avai l abl e at t he t i me of Powel l ' s

ar r est gener al l y consi st ed of a f i r ear ms i dent i f i cat i on car d ( FI D

car d) , a Cl ass B l i cense, and a Cl ass A l i cense. See, e. g. , Mass.

Gen. Laws ch. 140, §§ 129B, 129C, 131; see al so Hi ght ower , 693 F. 3d

at 65; Chi ef of Pol i ce of Ci t y of Wor cest er v. Hol den, 26 N. E. 3d

715, 721- 22 ( Mass. 2015) . An FI D car d per mi t s a qual i f i ed per son

t o keep a f i r ear m and ammuni t i on i n hi s home or pl ace of busi ness

but does not by i t sel f al l ow an i ndi vi dual t o car r y t hemi n publ i c.

See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, §§ 129B, 129C; Hi ght ower , 693 F. 3d at

66. A Cl ass B l i cense gener al l y per mi t s a per son t o publ i cl y car r y

smal l er capaci t y f i r ear ms f or l awf ul pur poses. See Mass. Gen. Laws

ch. 140, § 131( b) . The hol der of a Cl ass A l i cense has gr eat er

pr i vi l eges and gener al l y may publ i cl y car r y l ar ger capaci t y

f i r ear ms f or l awf ul pur poses t hat ar e l oaded and conceal ed. See

i d. ch. 140, § 131( a) ; Hi ght ower , 693 F. 3d at 66. " [ T] he chi ef of

pol i ce or t he boar d or of f i cer havi ng cont r ol of t he pol i ce i n a

ci t y or t own, or per sons aut hor i zed by t hem, " serve as t he st at e' s

l i censi ng aut hor i t y, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, § 121, and t he degr ee

of di scr et i on t o gr ant a per mi t and t o i mpose any rest r i ct i ons on

per mi t s var i es. See, e. g. , Mass. Gen. Laws §§ 129B, 129C, 131;

Hi ght ower , 693 F. 3d at 66 ( appl i cant must be a "sui t abl e per son"

-9-



f or a l i cense t o publ i cl y car r y) ; Hol den, 26 N. E. 3d at 723- 24, 727-

28 ( expl ai ni ng t he pur pose of t he st at e' s l i censi ng pr er equi si t es,

i ncl udi ng t he "sui t abl e per son" qual i f i cat i on) . 2

St at e l aw al so pr escri bes cr i mi nal penal t i es f or cer t ai n

unl awf ul conduct r el at ed t o f i r ear ms. Per t i nent her e, sect i on 10

of Chapt er 269 ( "Cr i mes Agai nst Publ i c Peace") of t he st at e' s

cr i mi nal code penal i zes t he unl awf ul possessi on or car r yi ng of

par t i cul ar weapons and ammuni t i on. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 269, § 10;

see gener al l y 2014 Mass. Act s ch. 284, §§ 89- 92 ( new l egi sl at i on

amendi ng Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 269, § 10) . Cr i mi nal sanct i ons may be

i mposed on, among other s:

( a) Whoever , except as pr ovi ded or exempt ed byst at ut e, knowi ngl y has i n hi s possessi on . . .a f i r ear m, l oaded or unl oaded, as def i ned i n[ ch. 140, § 121] wi t hout ei t her :

( 1) bei ng pr esent i n or on hi s r esi denceor pl ace of busi ness; or

2 Compr ehensi ve new st ate l egi sl at i on amendi ng a var i ety of f i r ear ms r egul at i ons was enact ed by t he Commonweal t h i n August2014. 2014 Mass. Act s ch. 284 ( "An Act Rel at i ve t o t he Reduct i onof Gun Vi ol ence") . Among ot her changes, t he new l aw wi l l el i mi nat et he cat egor y of Cl ass B l i cense i n or der t o cr eat e a uni t ar yl i cense t o car r y. See, e. g. , i d. at §§ 24, 46- 48, 60, 68, 71, 101.Our survey of Massachuset t s l aw i n t hi s opi ni on gener al l y adher est o t he l aws i n ef f ect at t he t i me of Powel l ' s cr i mi nal conduct .Moreover , our summary i s no more t han t hat . Chapter 140 of Massachuset t s Gener al Laws r equi r es l i censi ng f or many act i vi t i es

i n t he Commonweal t h, and t he regul atory scheme f or f i r ear ms wi t hi nt hat chapt er i s f ai r l y ext ensi ve, i ncor por at i ng var i ousr equi r ement s f or l awf ul possessi on and car r yi ng r el at i ng t o t heappl i cant , t he set t i ng, and t he usage. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch.140, §§ 121- 131P; see al so 2014 Mass. Act s ch. 284, § 70 ( newl egi sl at i on enact ed an addi t i onal pr ovi si on, Mass. Gen. Laws ch.140, § 131Q) .

-10-



( 2) havi ng i n ef f ect a l i cense t o car r yf i r ear ms i ssued under [ ch. 140, § 131gover ni ng l i censur e] ;

. . .

( h) ( 1) Whoever owns, possesses or t r ansf er s af i r ear m, r i f l e, shot gun or ammuni t i on wi t houtcompl yi ng wi t h [ ch. 140 § 129C governi ng FI Dcards] . . . .

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 269, § 10. A mi ni mum of ei ght een mont hs

i mpr i sonment i s r equi r ed f or a sect i on 10( a) vi ol at i on, i d. ch.

269, § 10( a) , and enhanced puni shment may be i mposed f or per sons

who vi ol at e t hi s subsect i on "by means of a l oaded f i r ear m, " i d. §

10( n) . I mpr i sonment i s not mandat or y f or al l sect i on 10( h)

vi ol at i ons. See i d. § 10( h) ( 1) . 3

At t he hear t of Powel l ' s due pr ocess cl ai mi s a st at ut or y

pr esumpt i on t hat ar i ses i n cr i mi nal pr osecut i on f or a f i r ear ms

of f ense.

A def endant i n a cr i mi nal pr osecut i on, r el yi ngf or hi s j ust i f i cat i on upon a l i cense,appoi nt ment , admi ssi on t o pr act i ce as anat t or ney at l aw, or aut hor i t y, shal l pr ove t hesame; and, unt i l so pr oved, t he pr esumpt i onshal l be t hat he i s not so aut hor i zed.

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, § 7 ( emphasi s added) . Accor di ngl y, unl ess

an i ndi vi dual st andi ng accused of unl awf ul l y possessi ng a f i r ear m

3 We not e t hat t he mer e f ai l ur e t o pr oduce a f i r ear ms l i censeupon demand may subj ect t he person t o surr ender i ng t he f i r ear m, butsuch f ai l ur e i s not , st andi ng al one, cr i mi nal . See Mass. Gen. Lawsch. 140, § 129C; see J ones, 361 N. E. 2d at 1312.

-11-



pr oduces evi dence at t r i al demonst r at i ng l i censur e, st at e l aw

pr esumes that he i s not so l i censed. See Commonweal t h v. Davi s,

270 N. E. 2d 925, 926 ( Mass. 1971) ( not i ng t hat t he sect i on 7

cr i mi nal pr ocedur e pr ovi si on "al l ows t he def endant t o show t hat hi s

conduct i s wi t hi n an except i on t o t he pr oscr i pt i on" on car r yi ng

f i r ear ms) . Sect i on 7 i s a r ul e of st at e cr i mi nal pr ocedur e t hat

appl i es i n an ar r ay of cr i mi nal pr osecut i ons beyond t he f i r ear ms

cont ext .

Wi t hi n t hi s st at ut or y f r amewor k, t he SJ C has l ong hel d

t hat a sect i on 10 f i r ear ms of f ense i s a publ i c wel f ar e of f ense t hat

i mposes a gener al pr ohi bi t i on agai nst car r yi ng a f i r ear mf or whi ch

both except i ons and exempt i ons may appl y i n any gi ven case.

Commonweal t h v. J ackson, 344 N. E. 2d 166, 174 ( 1976) ; J ones, 361

N. E. 2d at 1310- 13; see Davi s, 270 N. E. 2d at 926 ( expl ai ni ng t hat

sect i on 10( a) i s a r egul at or y measur e "pr oscr i b[ i ng] cer t ai n

i nher ent l y danger ous act s" ) . I n or der t o secur e a convi ct i on f or

a sect i on 10 f i r ear ms of f ense, t he Commonweal t h must pr ove beyond

a reasonabl e doubt t hat ( 1) t he accused knowi ngl y possessed a

f i r ear m, and ( 2) t he f i r ear m met t he l egal def i ni t i on pr ovi ded

under Chapt er 140, § 121. J ones, 361 N. E. 2d at 1311- 13; J ackson,

344 N. E. 2d at 174. Pur suant t o t he sect i on 7 cr i mi nal pr ocedur e

pr ovi si on, evi dence of l i cense may oper at e as an af f i r mat i ve

def ense at a cr i mi nal t r i al f or whi ch t he accused bear s t he bur den

of pr oduct i on onl y: "Absence of a l i cense i s not an el ement of t he

-12-



cr i me as t hat phr ase i s commonl y used. . . . [ Rat her , ] t he bur den

i s on t he def endant t o come f orward wi t h evi dence of t he def ense.

I f such evi dence i s pr esent ed, however , t he bur den i s on t he

pr osecut i on t o per suade t he t r i er of f act s beyond a reasonabl e

doubt t hat t he def ense does not exi st . " J ones, 361 N. E. 2d at

1311. 4

I n consi der i ng Powel l ' s di r ect appeal , t he SJ C saw no

r eason t o st r ay f r om i t s est abl i shed st at e pr ecedent , whi ch

i ncl udes t he hol di ng i n J ones t hat t he st at e l aw pl aci ng t he bur den

of pr oduct i on on a def endant sat i sf i es t he basel i ne due pr ocess

demands under Wi nshi p. See i d. at 1313. I t i s t hi s al l egi ance

t hat f uel s t he bul k of Powel l ' s due pr ocess cl ai m.

Powel l f i r st ar gues t hat t he ver y t ext of t he st at ut e of

convi ct i on cont empl at es t hat absence of l i cense i s an el ement of

4 The st at e cour t has af f i r med r epeat edl y t he J ones cour t ' sexposi t i on on bot h t he el ement s of a st at e f i r ear ms of f ense andl i censure operat i ng as an af f i r mat i ve def ense. See Commonweal t h v.Humphr i es, 991 N. E. 2d 652, 658- 59 ( 2013) ; Commonweal t h v. Eber har t ,965 N. E. 2d 791, 795 ( Mass. 2012) ; Commonweal t h v. J ef f erson, 965N. E. 2d 800, 809- 11 ( Mass. 2012) ; Commonweal t h v. Gouse, 965 N. E. 2d774, 788 n. 17 ( Mass. 2012) ; Commonweal t h v. Young, 905 N. E. 2d 90,95 n. 9, 96 ( Mass. 2009) ; Commonweal t h v. Col on, 866 N. E. 2d 412, 429( Mass. 2007) ; Commonweal t h v. Ander son, 834 N. E. 2d 1159, 1173- 74( Mass. 2005) ; Commonweal t h v. Than, 817 N. E. 2d 705, 708 (Mass.2004) ; Rami r ez, 555 N. E. 2d at 211; Commonweal t h v. Tui t t , 473

N. E. 2d 1103, 1109- 10 ( Mass. 1985) . Thi s pr ocedur al f r amewor k wi t hr espect t o l i cense as an af f i r mat i ve def ense i s not unusual evenamong f eder al st at ut es. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Mat t hews, 749F. 3d 99, 104- 05 ( 2014) ( hol di ng t hat "a def endant seeki ng t hebenef i t of an except i on" under t he per t i nent st at ut e "must shoul dert he bur den of comi ng f orward wi t h evi dence r egardi ng t hatexcept i on, " i ncl udi ng a val i d mar i j uana pr escr i pt i on) .

-13-



t he of f ense. He cr i t i ci zes the SJ C f or f ol l owi ng t he "muddl ed

r at i onal e" of J ones, whi ch he char act er i zes as r ecast i ng t hi s

essent i al el ement as an af f i r mat i ve def ense of l i censur e. Powel l ,

t her ef or e, ur ges us t o abi de by t he pl ai n l anguage of t he st at e

st at ut e and r ecogni ze absence of l i cense as an oper at i ve el ement of

t he f i r ear ms char ges t hat wer e l evi ed agai nst hi m. Thi s, we cannot

do.

I t i s, of cour se, t he dut y of t he st at e hi gh cour t t o

const r ue t he meani ng of st at e st at ut es, i ncl udi ng cr i mi nal of f enses

and r ul es of pr ocedur e, and t he SJ C has been dogmat i c i n f ol l owi ng

t he J ones exposi t i on f or more t han t hr ee decades. See Commonweal t h

v. Smi t h, 829 N. E. 2d 1090, 1092- 93 ( Mass. 2005) ; Commonweal t h v.

Anderson, 651 N. E. 2d 1237, 1240 (Mass. App. Ct . 1995) ( same) ; see

al so Mul l aney v. Wi l bur , 421 U. S. 684, 691 ( 1975) . The SJ C' s

exposi t i on r epr esent s t he ver y meani ng of t he st atut e i nt ended by

t he st at e l egi sl at ur e, and we ar e dut y bound, i n no uncer t ai n

t er ms, t o f ol l ow t hat st at e pr ecedent . See Mul l aney, 421 U. S. at

691 & n. 11; Marshal l , 753 F. 3d at 19.

St i l l , Powel l poi nt s t o sel ect st at e case l aw i n or der t o

st i r up some ambi gui t y on t he cr i mi nal el ement s of a sect i on 10

f i r ear ms of f ense. He ci t es t wo cases i n whi ch t he SJ C has

expr essed t hat mer e possessi on of a f i r ear m i s not unl awf ul ,

pr ecedent t hat he sees as conf l i ct i ng wi t h t he J ones l i ne. See

Commonweal t h v. Whi t e, 891 N. E. 2d 675 ( Mass . 2008) ; Commonweal t h v.

-14-



Al var ado, 667 N. E. 2d 856 ( Mass. 1996) . But , as i s of t en t he case,

cont ext cl ar i f i es.

The SJ C i n Whi t e, admi t t edl y, pai nt ed wi t h a broad brush

when r ecount i ng t he component s of pr oof f or a f i r ear ms cr i me. See

Whi t e, 891 N. E. 2d at 678 ( not i ng t hat " t he Commonweal t h must prove

t hat t he def endant knowi ngl y possessed a f i r ear m wi t hout . . .

havi ng i n ef f ect a l i cense t o car r y f i r ear ms or [ an FI D car d] ") .

However , i t s opi ni on ot her wi se shows no i nt ent t o undo cl ear and

l ongst andi ng pr ecedent gover ni ng t he l egal el ement s f or a sect i on

10 f i r ear ms of f ense and t he ef f ect of t he sect i on 7 cr i mi nal

pr ocedur e pr ovi si on a cri mi nal t r i al . See i d.

The same i s t r ue f or t he Four t h Amendment di scussi on i n

Al var ado. There, t he SJ C emphasi zed t hat mere possessi on of a

f i r ear m may not ser ve as t he sol e f act ual pr edi cat e f or l aw

enf or cement ' s r easonabl e suspi ci on of unl awf ul conduct necessar y t o

const i t ut i onal l y sei ze and sear ch a per son or pr oper t y. Al var ado,

667 N. E. 2d at 859- 60. Thi s makes emi nent sense gi ven t hat an

of f i cer on t he st r eet s gener al l y has no way of knowi ng whet her a

per son' s " mer e possessi on" of a f i r ear m compor t s wi t h t he stat e' s

r egul at or y r equi r ement s. See, e. g. , Commonweal t h v. Cout ur e, 552

N. E. 2d 538, 540 ( Mass. 1990) ( def endant was merel y "seen i n publ i c

wi t h a handgun" and pol i ce "had no reason t o bel i eve . . . t hat t he

def endant had no l i cense t o car r y a f i r ear m") ; Commonweal t h v.

Tool e, 448 N. E. 2d 1264, 1268 ( Mass . 1983) ( pol i ce "apparent l y never

-15-



asked t he def endant whether he had a l i cense t o car r y a f i r ear m"

but i nst ead unl awf ul l y sear ched t he vehi cl e f or one wi t hout any

basi s f or a r easonabl e suspi ci on of unl awf ul possessi on) . And, t he

SJ C has made i t cl ear t hat i t s Four t h Amendment deci si ons do not

conf use or ot her wi se al t er i t s J ones due pr ocess pr ecedent . See

Commonweal t h v. Gouse, 965 N. E. 2d 774, 803 n. 17 ( Mass. 2012) ;

Cout ur e, 552 N. E. 2d at 540- 41. Ul t i mat el y, i n Massachuset t s t he

pr esumed basel i ne of l awf ul possessi on af f or ded t o an i ndi vi dual

f or Four t h Amendment pur poses f al l s away i n a cr i mi nal pr osecut i on

wher e a per son st ands at t r i al accused of unl awf ul f i r ear ms

possess i on and makes no at t empt t o produce evi dence of proper

l i censur e.

Powel l , t her ef or e, does not est abl i sh any i r r econci l abl e

conf l i ct embedded wi t hi n st ate case l aw, much l ess one t hat mi ght

al l ow us t o di sr egar d J ones and i t s pr ogeny. See Mul l aney, 421

U. S. at 691 & n. 11 ( r ef er enci ng "obvi ous subt er f uge" as an exampl e

of "ext r eme ci r cumst ances" t hat may war r ant set t i ng asi de st at e

cour t exposi t i on of st at e l aw) ; see al so McMi l l an v. Pennsyl vani a,

477 U. S. 79, 89 n. 5 ( 1986) ( i n di scr edi t i ng a subt er f uge- t ype

ar gument , t he Supr eme Cour t " r ej ect [ ed] t he vi ew t hat anythi ng i n

t he Due Pr ocess Cl ause bar s St at es f r om maki ng changes i n t hei r

cr i mi nal l aw t hat have t he ef f ect of maki ng i t easi er f or t he

pr osecut i on t o obt ai n convi ct i ons") .

-16-



Powel l next f aul t s t he SJ C f or negl ect i ng t o "anal yze t he

ef f ect of t he i ndi ct ment or compl ai nt l i st i ng t he i ngr edi ent s or

el ement s of t he cr i me, " as he pur por t s i s r equi r ed by Appr endi and

Bl akel y. See Appr endi v. New J er sey, 530 U. S. 466 ( 2000) ; Bl akel y

v. Washi ngt on, 542 U. S. 296 ( 2004) . He sees t he Appr endi and

Bl akel y hol di ngs as somehow r equi r i ng t hat l anguage i n a char gi ng

i nst r ument modi f y t he l egal el ement s f or a cr i mi nal of f ense

pr escr i bed under l aw and poi nt s t o l anguage i n hi s cr i mi nal

compl ai nt t hat expr essl y ref er ences t he absence of a l i cense and an

FI D car d. Nei t her deci si on, however , bear s t hi s wei ght . See

Appr endi , 530 U. S. at 468- 69, 477, 484- 88, 490- 96 ( eval uat i ng t he

const i t ut i onal i t y of a cr i mi nal pr ocedur e set f or t h under t he st at e

st at ut es, not t he i ndi ct ment ) ; Bl akel y, 542 U. S. at 301, 303- 04

( appl yi ng Appr endi r ul e t o hol d t hat a j ur y f i ndi ng r equi r ed f or a

f act t hat enhances a sent ence beyond t he st atut ory maxi mum of t he

st andar d r ange) . Mor eover , t he Appr endi Cour t st r essed t hat t he

Wi nshi p due pr ocess i ssue t hat i t f aced di d not " r ai se any quest i on

concer ni ng t he St at e' s power t o mani pul at e t he pr osecut or ' s bur den

of pr oof by, f or exampl e, r el yi ng on a pr esumpt i on r at her t han

evi dence t o est abl i sh an el ement of an of f ense, or by pl aci ng t he

af f i r mat i ve def ense l abel on at l east some el ement s of t r adi t i onal

cr i mes. " 530 U. S. at 475 ( i nt er nal ci t at i ons and quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) . Ther ef or e, we see no er r or , l et al one obj ect i vel y

-17-



unr easonabl e er r or , i n t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on t o omi t

Appr endi and Bl akel y f r om i t s due pr ocess anal ysi s.

Bound as we are by st at e pr ecedent on t he meani ng and

f unct i onal i t y of st at e cr i mi nal l aw and pr ocedur e, t he deci si ve §

2254 i nqui r y f or us i s t hi s: whet her t he SJ C' s deci si on t hat t he

st at e l aw pr escr i pt i on of l i censur e as an af f i r mat i ve def ense

( i mposi ng onl y a bur den of pr oduct i on, not per suasi on, on a

def endant ) accor ds wi t h pr ocedur al due pr ocess under t he Federal

Const i t ut i on i s cont r ar y t o, or compr i ses an unr easonabl e

appl i cat i on of , cl ear l y est abl i shed Supr eme Cour t pr ecedent . To

t hi s l egi t i mat e quest i on, Powel l weakl y cri t i ci zes t he SJ C' s

al l egi ance t o t he due pr ocess anal ysi s i n J ones. He cont ends t hat

t he SJ C i n hi s di r ect appeal f ai l ed t o account f or t hat cour t ' s

er r or i n J ones i n t yi ng i t s due pr ocess anal ysi s t o t he so- cal l ed

"compar at i ve conveni ence" t est under Mor r i son v. Cal i f or ni a, 291

U. S. 82 ( 1933) . We ar e not per suaded of any obj ect i vel y

unr easonabl e l egal er r or .

I t i s t r ue t hat t he J ones cour t t ook i t s cue f r om

Mor r i son, whi ch di scusses t he " l i mi t s of r eason and f ai r ness" under

due pr ocess f or pl aci ng t he bur den of pr oduct i on on an accused i n

a cr i mi nal case. See J ones, 361 N. E. 2d at 1311- 12. The st at e

cour t r el i ed on t he f ol l owi ng gui depost s as set f or t h i n Mor r i son:

The l i mi t s ar e i n subst ance t hese, t hat t hest at e shal l have pr oved enough t o make i t j ustf or t he def endant t o be requi r ed t o r epel whathas been pr oved wi t h excuse or expl anat i on, or

-18-



at l east t hat upon a bal anci ng of conveni enceor of t he oppor t uni t i es f or knowl edge t heshi f t i ng of t he bur den wi l l be f ound t o be anai d t o the accuser wi t hout subj ect i ng t heaccused t o har dshi p or oppr essi on.

. . .

For a t r ansf er of t he bur den, exper i ence mustt each t hat t he evi dence hel d t o be i ncul pat or yhas at l east a s i ni ster ef f ect or i f t hi s att i mes be l acki ng, t here must be i n any event amani f est di spar i t y i n conveni ence of pr oof andoppor t uni t y f or knowl edge as, f or i nst ance,wher e a gener al pr ohi bi t i on i s appl i cabl e t oevery one who i s unabl e to br i ng hi msel f wi t hi n t he r ange of an except i on.

Mor r i son, 291 U. S. at 88- 89, 91 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and

br ackets omi t t ed) ( emphasi s added) ; see J ones, 361 N. E. 2d at 1312

( quot i ng Mor r i son) . Af t er r eaf f i r mi ng t hat t he sect i on 10 f i r ear ms

of f ense i s i n t he l i ne of gener al pr ohi bi t i on cr i mes, t he SJ C t hen

anal yzed t he due pr ocess quest i on under t he comparat i ve conveni ence

t est . J ones, 361 N. E. 2d at 1312- 13.

I n par t i cul ar , t he J ones cour t consi der ed t he r el at i ve

pr ocedur al bur dens i mposed by the sect i on 7 cr i mi nal pr ocedur e

pr ovi si on, i ncl udi ng t hat ( i ) var i ous l i censi ng aut hor i t i es

st at ewi de i ssued and r enewed l i censes, ( i i ) an accused coul d

pr oduce evi dence of l i cense wi t hout t est i f yi ng and wi t h r el at i ve

ease as compar ed t o t he pr osecut or , and ( i i i ) t he st at e' s st at ut or y

scheme mer el y requi r ed evi dence of l i cense i n cour t r at her t han

when f i r st conf r ont ed by l aw enf or cement i n or der t o avoi d cr i mi nal

convi ct i on based on " t he mi nor mi st ake of l eavi ng t he l i cense at

-19-



home. " I d. I t al so consi der ed t he scant r i sk of er r oneous

convi ct i on, r emar ki ng t hat : "We f i nd i t near l y i mpossi bl e t o

bel i eve t hat [ t he accused] had such a l i cense but wi t hhel d i t ,

subj ect i ng hi msel f t o t he r i sk of a mandat or y t er mof i mpr i sonment "

- - " ' [ s] uch an absurd game does not cont r i but e t o a sear ch f or

t r ut h . . . . ' " I d. ( quot i ng Wi l l i ams v. Fl or i da, 399 U. S. 78, 82

( 1970) ) . I n t he end, t he J ones cour t f ound "no unf ai r ness i n [ i t s]

t radi t i onal rul e. " I d.

Gi ven t hat t he sect i on 10 f i r ear ms of f ense remai ns a

general pr ohi bi t i on cr i me i n t he Commonweal t h, i t comes as no

sur pr i se t o us t hat t he SJ C i n Powel l ' s di r ect appeal deci ded t o

abi de by t he due pr ocess anal ysi s i n J ones. Cf . Mor r i son, 291 U. S.

at 91- 93 ( hol di ng t hat t he st ate cr i me under r evi ew was not one of

"gener al pr ohi bi t i on" bef or e consi der i ng whet her t he evi dence had

any "si ni st er si gni f i cance" i n r el at i on t o t he pr esumed cul pabi l i t y

component ) . Moreover , between t he t i me of J ones and Powel l ' s

di r ect appeal , t he Supr eme Cour t ' s precedent has devel oped

si gni f i cant l y i n t he f i el d of st at e l aw af f i r mat i ve def enses t hat

f ul l y sat i sf y t he Wi nshi p basel i ne demand. See, e. g. , Gi l mor e v.

Tayl or , 508 U. S. 333, 341 ( 1993) ; Medi na, 505 U. S. at 445- 46;

Mar t i n v. Ohi o, 480 U. S. 228, 233- 35 ( 1987) ; Pat t er son v. New Yor k,

432 U. S. 197, 210 ( 1977) . Thi s pr ecedent on af f i r mat i ve def enses

pr ovi des r eady suppor t f or concl udi ng t hat t he SJ C' s due pr ocess

r ul i ng i n Powel l ' s di r ect appeal i s not obj ect i vel y unr easonabl e.

-20-



See Pat t er son, 432 U. S. at 210 (hol di ng that due pr ocess does not

creat e "a const i t ut i onal i mper at i ve, oper at i ve count r ywi de, t hat a

St ate must di spr ove beyond a reasonabl e doubt every f act

const i t ut i ng any and al l af f i r mat i ve def enses r el at ed t o t he

cul pabi l i t y of an accused. ") ; see al so Mar t i n, 480 U. S. at 233- 35

( uphol di ng st at e st at ut e t hat pl aced on t he accused t he bur dens of

pr oduct i on and of per suasi on beyond a reasonabl e doubt f or sel f -

def ense as an af f i r mat i ve def ense) . Powel l nei t her addr esses t hi s

cl ear Supr eme Cour t pr ecedent gover ni ng af f i r mat i ve def enses, nor

ci t es even a si ngl e r oughl y compar abl e f eder al case i n whi ch a

st at e convi ct i on secur ed under a st at ut or y const r uct t hat i s

anal ogous t o Massachuset t s l aw was set asi de as vi ol at i ng t he

Wi nshi p due pr ocess demands. 5

Powel l next f aul t s t he SJ C f or f ai l i ng t o account f or t he

advent of t he comput er age under t he comparat i ve conveni ence t est

5 Powel l cont ends t hat t he SJ C i n hi s di r ect appeal ought t ohave f ol l owed t he " r at i onal connect i on" t est under Tot v. Uni t edSt ates, 319 U. S. 463 (1943) and Uni t ed St ates v. Romano, 382 U. S.136 ( 1965) . However , t hi s Supr eme Cour t pr ecedent i s i l l - f i t t ed t ot he due pr ocess quest i on f or t he Massachuset t s f i r ear ms cr i me,because bot h cases i nvol ved st at e st at ut or y schemes t hat r el i evedt he pr osecut or f r om pr ovi ng an el ement of t he cr i me; nei t heri nvol ved st at ut or y af f i r mat i ve def enses. See Tot , 319 U. S. at 464( st at ut e set f or t h t hat mer e possessi on of t he f i r ear m ser ved as

pr esumpt i ve pr oof t hat i t was " shi pped or t r anspor t ed i n i nt er st at eor f orei gn commerce, " an el ement of t he of f ense) ; Romano, 382 U. S.at 137 n. 2, 137- 38 ( st at ut e set f or t h t hat mer e unexpl ai nedpr esence at t he si t e of an i l l egal al cohol st i l l ser ved assuf f i ci ent pr oof t hat t he st i l l or di st i l l i ng appar at us was " i n hi spossessi on or cust ody, or under hi s cont r ol , " an el ement of t heof f ense) .

-21-



appl i ed i n J ones. Because near l y f or t y year s has passed si nce t he

J ones deci si on, Powel l cont ends t hat prosecutor s now woul d no

l onger bear a si gni f i cant bur den i n havi ng t o pr esent evi dence t hat

a par t i cul ar f i r ear m i s unl i censed. Hi s under st andi ng of t he

moder n day bur den f or a pr osecut or t o di scover l i censi ng evi dence

does not square wi t h t he SJ C' s, however . See Gouse, 965 N. E. 2d at

805- 06 ( " r evi ew[ i ng] t he depar t ment ' s r ecor ds and t he pol i ce

depart ment s i n any t owns or ci t i es i n whi ch t he def endant may have

l i ved" woul d compr i se "a daunt i ng task [ where] t he def endant may

have assumed an al i as or r esi ded at di f f er ent , or suspect

l ocat i ons") . Powel l al so i gnor es t hi s st at e aut hor i t y and

ot her wi se f ai l s t o of f er any sound basi s t hat mi ght compel us t o

di sr egar d t he SJ C' s own assessment on t he cur r ent pr act i cal

wor ki ngs of t he st at e l i censi ng system, l et al one gi ve r eason t o

f i nd t hat t he SJ C' s deci si on i n t he di r ect appeal was obj ect i vel y

unr easonabl e.

I n t he end, t he due pr ocess quest i on here evokes t he t ype

of const i t ut i onal st andar d est abl i shed by t he Supr eme Cour t t hat

per mi t s a f ai r amount of l at i t ude i n t he exer ci se of sound

deci si onal j udgment . See Medi na, 505 U. S. at 445- 46; McMi l l an, 477

U. S. at 91; Sanna v. Di paol o, 265 F. 3d 1, 13 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) . Even

t o t he ext ent t hat " i t i s a cl ose quest i on whet her t he st at e

deci si on i s i n er r or , " such i s not t he t hr eshol d r equi r ed f or

est abl i shi ng an obj ect i vel y unr easonabl e appl i cat i on of f eder al l aw

-22-



under AEDPA. Morgan, 677 F. 3d at 47 ( i nt ernal quotat i on marks

omi t t ed) . Accor di ngl y, we hol d t hat Powel l ' s due pr ocess cl ai m

pr ovi des no basi s f or gr ant i ng § 2254 habeas r el i ef .

B. Second Amendment

Powel l next seeks § 2254 habeas r el i ef on t he basi s t hat

hi s st at e f i r ear ms convi ct i ons vi ol at e hi s r i ght t o keep and bear

arms under t he Second Amendment . He present s t wo cl ai ms; t he f i r st

chal l enges t he mi ni mum age r equi r ement s f or st at e f i r ear ms

l i censur e ( wi t h a r el at ed equal pr ot ect i on cl ai m) , and t he second

r evi si t s t he sect i on 7 cr i mi nal pr ocedur e pr ovi si on t hr ough a

di f f er ent const i t ut i onal pr i sm. For bot h, Powel l st ands on t he

nascent Supr eme Cour t pr ecedent est abl i shi ng t hat t he Second

Amendment secur es a l i mi t ed i ndi vi dual r i ght t o keep and bear arms

f or sel f - def ense of hear t h and home unconnected t o organi zed

mi l i t i a. Hel l er , 554 U. S. 570; see McDonal d, 561 U. S. 742 ( hol di ng

t hat t he Second Amendment f ul l y appl i es t o st ate and l ocal

r egul at i on t hr ough t he Four t eent h Amendment ) . We addr ess each i n

t ur n.

1. Minimum Age Qualifications

A qual i f i ed appl i cant who i s at l east f i f t een year s of

age may obt ai n an FI D car d f or possessi on of a f i r ear m i n t he home

or busi ness premi ses but must be at l east t went y- one years of age

i n or der t o obt ai n a l i cense t o publ i cl y car r y a f i r ear m. See

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, §§ 129B( 1) ( v) , 131( d) . Powel l cont ends

-23-



t hat t hi s age- based di st i nct i on unl awf ul l y ef f ect s " [ an] absol ut e

pr ohi bi t i on of an ent i r e cl ass of l aw- abi di ng adul t s f r om bear i ng

ar ms, " namel y, t hose who ar e ei ght een- t o- t went y year s ol d, and,

t hus, r uns cont r ary t o hi s Second Amendment and Equal Protect i on

r i ght s. We, however , agr ee wi t h t he Commonweal t h t hat t hese

f eder al const i t ut i onal cl ai ms ar e bar r ed by t he pr ocedur al def aul t

r ul e.

A f eder al cour t gener al l y wi l l not r evi ew a § 2254 habeas

cl ai m when t he st at e cour t ' s deci si on f or t hat cl ai m r est s on a

st at e l aw gr ound t hat i s i ndependent of t he f eder al quest i on and

adequate t o support t he j udgment . Mart i nez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct .

1309, 1315- 16 ( 2012) ; see Hodge v. Mendonsa, 739 F. 3d 34, 44 ( 1st

Ci r . 2013) . Gr ounded i n comi t y and f eder al i sm, t he pr ocedur al

def aul t r ul e bar s § 2254 habeas r el i ef "when a st at e cour t decl i ned

t o addr ess a pr i soner ' s f eder al cl ai ms because the pr i soner had

f ai l ed t o meet a st at e pr ocedur al r equi r ement . " Col eman v.

Thompson, 501 U. S. 722, 729- 30 ( 1991) , l i mi t ed i n par t by Mar t i nez,

132 S. Ct . at 1319; Rosent hal v. O' Br i en, 713 F. 3d 676, 683 ( 1st

Ci r . ) , cer t . deni ed, 134 S. Ct . 434 ( 2013) .

I n Massachuset t s, " [ o] nl y one whose r i ght s are i mpai r ed

by a st at ut e can r ai se t he quest i on of i t s const i t ut i onal i t y, and

he can obj ect t o t he st atut e onl y as appl i ed t o hi m. " Commonweal t h

v. Gordon, 242 N. E. 2d 399, 401 ( Mass. 1968) ; see Commonweal t h v.

Br unel l e, 277 N. E. 2d 826, 830 ( Mass. 1972) . A cr i mi nal def endant

-24-



who i s char ged wi t h vi ol at i ng a l i censi ng st at ut e may chal l enge t he

under l yi ng st at e l egi sl at i on "even i n t he absence of an appl i cat i on

f or a l i cense, " but t he scope of t hat st at e j udi ci al r evi ew has i t s

l i mi t s. Gor don, 242 N. E. 2d at 401. I n such cases, t he SJ C

r est r i cts i t s at t ent i on t o t he par t i cul ar st at ut or y pr ovi si ons t hat

ar e act ual l y i mpl i cat ed by t he char ged unl i censed act i vi t y and

decl i nes t o addr ess pr ovi si ons t hat do not r epr esent i nj ur y

i ncur r ed by vi r t ue of t he par t i cul ar convi ct i on secur ed agai nst

t hat def endant . See i d. 401- 02.

Her e, t he SJ C i n Powel l ' s di r ect appeal f ol l owed t hi s

st at e nor m when decl i ni ng t o r evi ew t he mer i t s of Powel l ' s age-

based cl ai ms. Powel l ' s cr i mi nal convi ct i ons r est ed on hi s conduct

of publ i cl y car r yi ng a l oaded f i r ear m wi t hout aut hor i zat i on, and

hi s l ack of l i censur e was presumed due t o hi s f ai l ur e t o pr oduce

pr oof on t hat af f i r mat i ve def ense. When consi der i ng Powel l ' s

argument t hat hi s f i r ear ms convi ct i ons must be r eversed because the

mi ni mumage qual i f i cat i on was unconst i t ut i onal , t he SJ C i mmedi at el y

not ed t hat Powel l had not appl i ed f or a f i r ear ms per mi t and had

f ai l ed to demonst r at e t hat he woul d have been deni ed l i censure

based sol el y on hi s age. See Powel l , 946 N. E. 2d at 129- 30 ( ci t i ng

J ackson, 344 N. E. 2d at 169- 70 n. 3) . The st at e cour t r ul ed,

t her ef or e, t hat Powel l ' s nar r ow const i t ut i onal chal l enge t o hi s

convi ct i ons was f or ecl osed. See i d.

-25-



I n so hol di ng, t he SJ C r ecogni zed t hat even i f t he age-

based cl ai ms had mer i t , Powel l ' s f i r ear ms convi ct i ons woul d r emai n

i nt act gi ven t he var i ous el i gi bi l i t y requi r ement s l ef t unchal l enged

t hat mi ght ver y wel l oper at e t o l egi t i mat el y deny hi m a l i cense,

such as bei ng a "sui t abl e" per son. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, §

131( d) . I n ot her wor ds, t he cour t essent i al l y hel d t hat t he

pur por t edl y unconst i t ut i onal mi ni mum age r equi r ement , st andi ng

al one, di d not necessar i l y i nj ur e Powel l by r ender i ng t he

convi ct i ons t hemsel ves unconst i t ut i onal . We concl ude t hat t he

SJ C' s deci si on decl i ni ng t o addr ess t he mer i t s of t he f eder al

const i t ut i onal quest i ons r est ed on an adequate and i ndependent

st at e l aw gr ound t hat bar s our r evi ew of Powel l ' s const i t ut i onal

cl ai ms.

Powel l seeks t o excuse hi s st at e cour t def aul t by r el yi ng

on t he f ut i l i t y doct r i ne. See Hodge, 739 F. 3d at 43 ( f eder al cour t

may excuse st ate cour t def aul t where a pet i t i oner shows cause and

act ual pr ej udi ce) . Hi s ar gument i s mi spl aced, however . Al t hough

f eder al cour t s may appl y t he f ut i l i t y doct r i ne i n nar r ow

ci r cumst ances f or t he f eder al exhaust i on r equi r ement , see Al l en v.

At t or ney Gener al of St at e of Me. , 80 F. 3d 569, 573 ( 1st Ci r . 1996) ,

Powel l pr ovi des no aut hor i t y t o est abl i sh t hat t he doct r i ne has any

bear i ng on t he excuse i nqui r y. I ndeed, not one of t he cases t hat

he ci t es i nvol ves a § 2254 habeas pet i t i on, and our own r esearch

cast s si gni f i cant doubt on hi s pr esumed l egal posi t i on. See

-26-



Ber kl ey v. Quar t er man, 310 F. App' x 665, 672- 73 ( 5t h Ci r . ) , cer t .

deni ed, 558 U. S. 843 ( 2009) ( decl i ni ng t o r ecogni ze a f ut i l i t y

except i on f or t he st at e pr ocedur al def aul t r ul e) .

Powel l ' s cur sor y ar gument on pr ej udi ce al so f ai l s. By

l eavi ng unt ouched t he var i ous el i gi bi l i t y requi r ement s f or secur i ng

a l i cense t o publ i cl y car r y a l oaded weapon, a successf ul

const i t ut i onal chal l enge t o t he st at e' s mi ni mum age qual i f i cat i on

al one does not necessar i l y demonst r at e i l l egal st at e conf i nement .

See 28 U. S. C. § 2254( a) ; Al l en, 442 U. S. at 154- 55 ( f or a § 2254

pet i t i on, "[ a] par t y has st andi ng t o chal l enge t he

const i t ut i onal i t y of a st at ut e onl y i nsof ar as i t has an adver se

i mpact on hi s own r i ght s" ) . 6

Accor di ngl y, we ar e f or ecl osed f r om r eachi ng t he mer i t s

of Powel l ' s const i t ut i onal at t acks on t he mi ni mumage qual i f i cat i on

f or obt ai ni ng a l i cense t o publ i cl y carr y a f i rearm i n

Massachuset t s.

2. Criminal Procedure Provision

Powel l next r evi si t s t he sect i on 7 cr i mi nal pr ocedur e

pr ovi si on, ar gui ng t hat t he l ack of l i cense pr esumpt i on i nf r i nges

on hi s Second Amendment r i ght s as secur ed under Hel l er and

McDonal d. Accor di ng t o Powel l , t hese deci si ons " r est or ed t he

6 Powel l ' s other sundr y ar gument s f or hal t i ng t he pr ocedur aldef aul t bar whol l y l ack mer i t and do not war r ant extendedat t ent i on.

-27-



pr esumpt i on of i nnocence, i nval i dat i ng st at ut es l i ke [ sect i on 7] "

t hat i mpose cr i mi nal puni shment on per sons "si mpl y f or exer ci si ng

t hei r Second Amendment r i ght s. " The Commonweal t h agr ees t hat we

ought t o af f or d hi s cl ai m de novo r evi ew, because t he SJ C' s

deci si on i s si l ent on t hi s const i t ut i onal cl ai m. See Cl ement s v.

Cl ar ke, 592 F. 3d 45, 52, 54 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) . Even wi t hout t he

const r ai nt s of AEDPA, however , Powel l ' s cl ai m qui ckl y crumbl es.

Powel l at t empts t o l aunch a Second Amendment at t ack on

t he method or l egi sl at i ve desi gn by whi ch t he Commonweal t h has

chosen t o cr i mi nal l y enf or ce i t s f i r ear ms l i censi ng scheme. He

aver s t hat t he vi abi l i t y of hi s cl ai mdoes not necessar i l y "depend

upon whether t he Second Amendment r i ght ext ends outsi de t he home, "

because he r eads t he Hel l er / McDonal d deci si ons as af f i r mat i vel y

pr ecl udi ng st at es f r om "i mpos[ i ng] a gener al pr ohi bi t i on agai nst

car r yi ng a f i r ear m" and f r om "pr oscr i b[ i ng] car r yi ng a f i r ear m,

al one, as an i nher ent l y danger ous act [ t hat i s] subj ect t o cr i mi nal

pr osecut i on. " 7 But , i n t he mi dst of hi s i t er at i ons on t he hol di ngs

of Hel l er and McDonal d, Powel l under scores t hat he i s not

"chal l eng[ i ng] t he l i censi ng scheme as a whol e" nor ar gui ng t hat

"gener al l y r equi r i ng f i r ear m owner s t o obt ai n l i censes and

7 As ear l i er not ed, t he st at e f i r ear ms of f ense i s a publ i cwel f ar e or gener al pr ohi bi t i on of f ense desi gned " t o cont r ol t hecar r yi ng of f i r ear ms so as t o pr ot ect t he publ i c f r omt he pot ent i aldanger i nci dent t o [ t hei r ] unl awf ul possessi on. " Commonweal t h v. J ef f er son, 965 N. E. 2d 800, 808 ( Mass . 2012) ( i nter nal quot at i onmarks and el l i pses omi t t ed) ; see Commonweal t h v. Young, 905 N. E. 2d90, 96 ( Mass. 2009) ; Davi s, 270 N. E. 2d at 926.

-28-



r egi st r at i on car ds vi ol ates t he Second Amendment . " Thus, on cl ose

i nspect i on, Powel l ' s cl ai m i s not hi ng mor e t han a hol l ow

r ecapi t ul at i on of hi s pr ocedur al due pr ocess cl ai m i n Second

Amendment garb, and i t s f ate i s t he same.

Nowhere i n i t s dual deci si ons di d t he Supr eme Cour t

i mpugn l egi sl at i ve desi gns t hat compr i se so- cal l ed gener al

pr ohi bi t i on or publ i c wel f ar e r egul at i ons ai med at addr essi ng

per cei ved i nher ent danger s and r i sks sur r oundi ng the publ i c

possessi on of l oaded, oper abl e f i r ear ms. Rat her , t he Cour t

at t ended t o l egi sl at i ve subst ance and endor sed t he cont i nui ng

vi abi l i t y of a r ange of st at e f i r ear ms r egul at i ons wi t hout

endeavor i ng t o dr aw Second Amendment l i nes f or st at e l egi sl at i ve

ar chi t ect ur e. See Hel l er , 554 U. S. at 626- 27; McDonal d, 130 S. Ct .

at 3047. I n f act , al ong i t s soj our n, t he Cour t r ecogni zed t hat

st at es have hi st or i cal l y execut ed f i r ear ms r egul at i on t hr ough

gener al pr ohi bi t i on publ i c saf et y l aws. See Hel l er , 554 U. S. at

631- 32.

Powel l ' s r el i ance on Her r i ngt on v. Uni t ed St at es, 6 A. 3d

1237 ( D. C. 2010) , al so does not hel p hi m. Ther e, t he D. C. Cour t of

Appeal s r ever sed a def endant ' s convi ct i on f or unl awf ul possessi on

of ammuni t i on t hat r est ed on a gener al pr ohi bi t i on cr i mi nal st at ut e

i n whi ch t he accused had t he bur den of pr ovi ng r egi st r at i on as an

except i on or af f i r mat i ve def ense. 6 A. 3d at 1240- 47. Si gni f i cant

t o t he cour t , t he def endant was convi ct ed f or unl awf ul l y possessi ng

-29-



handgun ammuni t i on i n hi s home, and t he cour t r est r i ct ed t he reach

of i t s hol di ng t o t he st at ut e of convi ct i on as appl i ed t o t he

def endant . I d. at 1242- 45. I t hel d t hat "t he Second Amendment

guarant ees a r i ght t o possess ammuni t i on i n t he home that i s

coextensi ve wi t h t he r i ght t o possess a usabl e handgun t her e, " i d.

at 1243, and "expr ess[ ed] no opi ni on as t o whet her t he [D. C. ]

st at ut e i s const i t ut i onal i n ot her appl i cat i ons [ such as when]

appl i ed t o possessi on of handgun ammuni t i on out si de t he home, " i d.

at 1244, n. 25. Her r i ngt on, t her ef or e, has no bear i ng on Powel l ' s

convi ct i ons whi ch r est on publ i cl y car r yi ng a l oaded f i r ear m

wi t hout a l i cense. 8

Mor e f undament al l y, gi ven t he publ i c spher e cont ext f or

hi s f i r ear m possessi on, Powel l pr ovi des us wi t h no basi s f or

concl udi ng t hat hi s convi ct i ons coul d even r each t he saf e haven of

t he Second Amendment . He bol dl y - - and wr ongl y - - pr onounces t hat

t he Supr eme Cour t i n Hel l er "cl ear l y est abl i shed t hat t he r i ght t o

keep and bear arms encompasses one' s ' person' unr el ated t o the

home. " ( Emphasi s i n or i gi nal . ) We f l at l y r ej ect hi s r ead.

8 The D. C. cour t al so i ncl uded i n i t s anal ysi s numer ouscaveat s beyond t he home- ver sus- publ i c di st i nct i on. I t t ook not e,f or exampl e, t hat i n t he Di st r i ct of Col umbi a, t he r el at i ve bur denof pr oduci ng l i censi ng paperwork remai ned i n equi poi se between t he

government and t he def ense. Herr i ngt on, 6 A. 3d at 1245 n. 30; seeBr own v. Uni t ed St ates, 66 A. 2d 491, 494 ( D. C. 1949) ( unl i ke mostst at es, onl y one l i censi ng aut hor i t y exi st s i n t he r el at i vel y smal lgeogr aphi cal ar ea of t he Di st r i ct of Col umbi a and t hat ent i t yannual l y i ssues onl y a smal l number of l i censes) . Thi s i s mar kedl ydi f f er ent f r om t he bur den f aced by l aw enf or cement i nMassachuset t s. See Gouse, 965 N. E. 2d at 805- 06.

-30-



Toget her , Hel l er and McDonal d est abl i sh t hat st at es may not i mpose

l egi sl at i on t hat wor ks a compl et e ban on t he possessi on of oper abl e

handguns i n t he home by l aw- abi di ng, r esponsi bl e ci t i zens f or use

i n i mmedi at e sel f - def ense. See Hel l er , 554 U. S. at 628- 32, 635- 36;

McDonal d, 130 S. Ct . at 3036- 46, 3050; see Hi ght ower , 693 F. 3d at

72; Booker , 644 F. 3d at 22, 25 n. 17. The neot er i c deci si ons

addr essed onl y t he set t i ng of "us[ i ng] ar ms i n def ense of hear t h

and home, " l ef t open f or f ut ur e cases t he sor t of j udi ci al r evi ew

t o be appl i ed t o ot her f i r ear ms r egul at i on, and f i r ml y di savowed

any not i on t hat an i ndi vi dual has a const i t ut i onal r i ght "t o keep

and car r y any weapon whatsoever i n any manner what soever and f or

whatever pur pose. " See Hel l er , 554 U. S. at 626- 35; McDonal d, 130

S. Ct . at 3047, 3050; see al so Booker , 644 F. 3d at 22. 9

9 Sever al ci r cui t s have adopt ed a t wo- par t f r amewor k f oreval uat i ng a cl ai m of Second Amendment i nf r i ngement i n t he post -

Hel l er era. Br oadl y speaki ng, some cour t s f i r st consi der whet hert he chal l enged l aw i mposes a bur den on conduct t hat f al l s wi t hi nt he scope of t he Second Amendment ' s guarant ee as hi st or i cal l yunder st ood, and i f so, cour t s next det er mi ne t he appr opr i at e f or mof j udi ci al scr ut i ny t o appl y ( t ypi cal l y, some f or m of ei t heri nt er medi at e scrut i ny or st r i ct scr ut i ny) . See, e. g. , J ackson v.Ci t y and Count y of San Fr anci sco, 746 F. 3d 953, 962- 63 ( 9t h Ci r .2014) , pet i t i on f or cer t . f i l ed, ( U. S. Dec. 12, 2014) ( No. 14- 704) ;Dr ake v. Fi l ko, 724 F. 3d 426, 429 ( 3d Ci r . 2013) , cer t . deni ed, 134S. Ct . 2134 ( 2014) ; Wool l ar d v. Gal l agher , 712 F. 3d 865, 874- 75( 4t h Ci r . ) , cer t . deni ed, 134 S. Ct . 422 ( 2013) ; Nat ' l Ri f l e Assn' nof Am. , I nc. v. Bur eau of Al cohol , Tobacco, Fi r ear ms, & Expl osi ves,

700 F. 3d 185, 194 ( 5t h Ci r . 2012) , cer t . deni ed, 134 S. Ct . 1364( 2014) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Gr eeno, 679 F. 3d 510, 518 ( 6t h Ci r . ) ,cer t . deni ed, 133 S. Ct . 375 ( 2012) ; Hel l er v. Di st r i ct of Col umbi a, 670 F. 3d 1244, 1252 ( D. C. Ci r . 2011) ( Hel l er I I ) ; Ezel lv. Ci t y of Chi cago, 651 F. 3d 684, 701–04 ( 7t h Ci r . 2011) ; Uni t edSt at es v. Reese, 627 F. 3d 792, 800–01 ( 10t h Ci r . 2010) , cer t .deni ed, 131 S. Ct . 2476 ( 2011) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Mar zzarel l a, 614

-31-



Whi l e t he Supr eme Cour t spoke of a r i ght of l aw- abi di ng,

r esponsi bl e ci t i zens t o keep and bear ar ms " i n case of

conf r ont at i on" out si de t he cont ext of an or gani zed mi l i t i a, Hel l er ,

554 U. S. at 582- 92; see McDonal d, 130 S. Ct . at 3036- 42, 3048, i t

di d not say, and t o dat e has not sai d, t hat publ i cl y car r yi ng a

f i r ear m unconnect ed t o def ense of hear t h and home and unconnect ed

t o mi l i t i a ser vi ce i s a def i ni t i ve r i ght of pr i vat e ci t i zens

prot ect ed under t he Second Amendment . Debat e cont i nues among

cour t s. Compare Per ut a v. Count y of San Di ego, 742 F. 3d 1144,

1149- 66 ( 9t h Ci r . 2014) , r equest f or r ehear i ng en banc gr ant ed,

2015 WL 1381752 ( 9t h Ci r . Mar . 26, 2015) ( No. 10- 56971) ; Dr ake v.

Fi l ko, 724 F. 3d 426, 430- 31 ( 3d Ci r . 2013) , cer t . deni ed, 134 S.

Ct . 2134 ( 2014) ; Wool l ard, 712 F. 3d at 874- 76; Moor e v. Madi gan,

F. 3d 85, 89 ( 3d Ci r . 2010) , cer t . deni ed, 131 S. Ct . 958 ( 2011) ;

cf . Kwong v. Bl oomber g, 723 F. 3d 160, 167 ( 2d Ci r . 2013) , cer t .deni ed, 134 S. Ct . 2696 ( 2014) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Bena, 664 F. 3d1180, 1182- 85 ( 8t h Ci r . 2011) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Skoi en, 614 F. 3d638, 639–43 ( 7t h Ci r . 2010) ( en banc) . See al so Tyl er v. Hi l l sdal eCount y Sher i f f ' s Dept . , 775 F. 3d 308, 318 ( 6t h Ci r . 2014) ( "Ther emay be a number of r easons t o quest i on t he soundness of [ t he] t wo-st ep appr oach" adopt ed by var i ous ci r cui t s. ) .

We t hus f ar have ent ered t he di scour se on f ew occasi ons,most l y i n di r ect appeal s of f eder al f i r ear ms convi ct i ons, and havehewed cl osel y and caut i ousl y t o Hel l er ' s ci r cumscr i bed anal ysi s andhol di ng. See Uni t ed St at es v. Car t er , 752 F. 3d 8 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ;Uni t ed St at es v. Ar mst r ong, 706 F. 3d 1, 3- 8 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ,

vacated and remanded on ot her grounds, 134 S. Ct . 1759 ( 2014)( Mem. ) ( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Cast l eman, 134 S. Ct . 1405 ( 2014) ) ;Uni t ed St at es v. Rehl ander , 666 F. 3d 45, 48- 50 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ;Uni t ed St at es v. Booker , 644 F. 3d 12, 15- 26 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) , cer t .deni ed, 132 S. Ct . 1538 ( 2012) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Rene E. , 583 F. 3d8, 16 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) , cer t . deni ed, 558 U. S. 1133 ( 2010) ; cf .Hi ght ower , 693 F. 3d 61.

-32-



702 F. 3d 933, 935- 36 ( 7t h Ci r . 2012) , wi t h Per ut a, 742 F. 3d at

1179- 91 ( Thomas, J . , di ssent i ng) ; Dr ake, 724 F. 3d at 444- 46

( Har di man, J . , di ssent i ng) ; Moor e, 702 F. 3d at 944- 49 ( Wi l l i ams,

J . , di ssent i ng) ; see al so Uni t ed Stat es v. Masci andaro, 638 F. 3d

458, 467- 68, 474- 76 ( 4t h Ci r . 2011) . 10

Per haps r ecogni zi ng t hat we woul d r ej ect hi s ar gument

t hat Hel l er and McDonal d r each so f ar , Powel l never t hel ess i nvi t es

us t o hol d t hat t he l i mi t ed Second Amendment r i ght as ar t i cul at ed

i n Hel l er ext ends out si de t he vi ci ni t y of t he home. We decl i ne t o

do so.

Thi s ci r cui t has yet t o wei gh i n on " t he scope of t he

Second Amendment as t o car r yi ng f i r earms out si de t he vi ci ni t y of

t he home wi t hout any ref erence to pr otect i on of t he home. "

Hi ght ower , 693 F. 3d at 72. Thus f ar , we have hel d t hat any

10 We ar e not sangui ne about t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t ' scharacter i zat i on t hat a "consensus" has devel oped among t heci r cui t s r egardi ng some l i mi t ed r i ght under t he Second Amendment t okeep and bear operabl e f i r ear ms out si de t he home f or t he pur pose of sel f - def ense. See Per ut a, 742 F. 3d at 1166. Tr ue, t he Sevent hCi r cui t i n Moor e hel d as t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t posi t s, at l east t o al i mi t ed degr ee. See Uni t ed St at es v. Wi l l i ams, 731 F. 3d 678, 693-94 ( 7t h Ci r . 2013) ( Hami l t on, J . , concur r i ng i n par t and i n t he j udgment ) . However , t he r emai ni ng t hree ci r cui t s i dent i f i ed mer el yassumed f or anal yt i cal pur poses, wi t hout deci di ng, t hat t he l i mi t edSecond Amendment i ndi vi dual r i ght descr i bed i n Hel l er ext ended

somewhat beyond t he hear t h and home set t i ng. See Dr ake, 724 F. 3dat 430- 31; Wool l ar d, 712 F. 3d at 874, 876; Kachal sky v. Cnt y. of West chest er , 701 F. 3d 81, 89 ( 2d Ci r . 2012) ; see al so Hi ght ower ,693 F. 3d at 72 n. 8, 74 ( decl i ni ng t o deci de publ i c spher e quest i on,and assumi ng wi t hout deci di ng some Second Amendment i nterest i npubl i cl y car r yi ng a conceal ed weapon) .

-33-



i ndi vi dual r i ght " i n car r yi ng conceal ed weapons out si de the home i s

di st i nct f r om [ t he] cor e i nt er est emphasi zed i n Hel l er , " and t hat

under Hel l er , " [ l ] i censi ng of t he car r yi ng of conceal ed weapons i s

pr esumpt i vel y l awf ul . " See i d. at 72- 74 & n. 8. Yet , Powel l of f er s

onl y a meager measure of br i ef i ng, about one page, t o support hi s

r at her si gni f i cant r equest . He ci t es two deci si ons i n whi ch t he

Sevent h and Ni nt h Ci r cui t s vent ur ed i nt o t he t opi c of put at i ve gun

r i ght s i n t he publ i c spher e as pr ompt ed by the hol i st i c,

subst ant i ve ef f ect of t he r egul at i ons chal l enged bef or e t hem. See

Moor e, 702 F. 3d 933; Per ut a, 742 F. 3d 1144. 11 Powel l ' s s l i ght

advocacy, however , makes hi s coquet r y t he pr oper candi date f or

appel l at e wai ver . See Uni t ed St at es v. Zanni no, 895 F. 2d 1, 17

( 1st Ci r . 1990) ; cf . Moor e, 702, F. 3d at 935 ( "The par t i es and t he

ami ci cur i ae have t r eat ed us t o hundr eds of pages of ar gument , i n

ni ne br i ef s" as advocacy on Second Amendment r i ght s i n t he publ i c

spher e. ) .

11 See Per ut a, 742 F. 3d at 1169- 71 ( count y regul at i on bar r eda t ypi cal , l aw- abi di ng ci t i zen f ear i ng f or hi s per sonal saf et y f r omaccessi ng a conceal ed- car r y l i cense, and "open car r y" was ot her wi se

pr ohi bi t ed) ; Moor e, 702 F. 3d at 940 ( "I l l i noi s i s t he onl y st at et hat mai nt ai ns a f l at ban on car r yi ng r eady- t o- use guns out si de t hehome . . . [ n] ot even Massachuset t s has so f l at a ban asI l l i noi s" ) ; see al so Hol den, 26 N. E. 3d at 726 ( emphasi zi ng t hatMassachuset t s l aw does not absol ut el y pr ohi bi t handguns i n t he homenor ban r eady- t o- use f i r ear ms i n publ i c) .

-34-



Al l t ol d, we concl ude t hat Powel l ' s Second Amendment

cl ai mprovi des no groundi ng f or set t i ng asi de hi s st ate f i rearms convi cti ons.

C. Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel

Powel l ' s i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of counsel cl ai mr el at es

t o hi s t r i al counsel ' s f ai l ur e t o move t o suppr ess hi s st at ement i n

whi ch he deni ed t o t he ar r est i ng of f i cer t hat he had possessed a

f i r ear m, wi t hout t he benef i t of Mi r anda war ni ngs. The SJ C r ej ect ed

hi s const i t ut i onal cl ai mon t he basi s t hat t he al l egedl y def i ci ent

perf ormance of counsel caused Powel l no pr ej udi ce, because there

was evi dence t hat t he pol i ce of f i cer s saw Powel l hol di ng a f i r ear m

and t hat he at t empt ed t o conceal a gun and evade the pol i ce whi l e

doi ng so. Powel l , 946 N. E. 2d at 125; see J ackson, 344 N. E. 2d at

174 (pr osecut i on must pr ove t hat t he accused "knew t hat he was

car r yi ng a f i r ear m" and need not pr ove t hat t he accused knew he

l acked a l i cense to possess and car r y a f i r ear m) . 12

Al t hough Powel l agr ees t hat t he st at e cour t deci si on i s

r evi ewed under AEDPA, he f ai l s t o i ndi cat e how i t i s " cont r ar y t o,

or i nvol ved an unr easonabl e appl i cat i on of , cl ear l y est abl i shed

Federal l aw" as det ermi ned by t he Supr eme Cour t . 28 U. S. C.

12 The SJ C deci ded t he const i t ut i onal i ssue under t heMassachuset t s st andar d whi ch gener al l y i nqui r es whet her t her e has

been ser i ous def i ci ency of counsel and whether such subst andardper f or mance " l i kel y depr i ved t he def endant of an ot her wi seavai l abl e, subst ant i al gr ound of def ence. " Commonweal t h v.Saf er i an, 315 N. E. 2d 878, 883 ( Mass. 1974) . The l aw of our ci r cui ti s t hat t hi s Massachuset t s st andar d i s t he f unct i onal equi val ent of t he f eder al St r i ckl and st andar d. Ouber v. Guar i no, 293 F. 3d 19, 32( 1st Ci r . 2002) .

-35-



§ 2254( d) . I ndeed, he does not ci t e t o any Supr eme Cour t

aut hor i t y, such as Cul l en v. Pi nhol st er , 131 S. Ct . 1388 ( 2011) ,

Ki mmel man v. Mor r i son, 477 U. S. 365 ( 1986) , or St r i ckl and v.

Washi ngt on, 466 U. S. 668 ( 1984) , t o gr appl e wi t h t he SJ C' s anal ysi s

at al l . See Lopez, 135 S. Ct . at 3 ( r emi ndi ng t hat Supr eme Cour t

pr ecedent serves as t he benchmar k f or secur i ng § 2254 rel i ef ) .

Accor di ngl y, we deemhi s ar gument wai ved. See Gl acken, 585 F. 3d at

552.

III. Conclusion

Powel l ' s pet i t i on gi ves no gr oundi ng f or set t i ng asi de

hi s st at e f i r ear ms convi ct i ons. Accor di ngl y, we affirm t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on t o deny hi s § 2254 pet i t i on.

So ordered.

- Dissenting Opinion Follows -

-36-



TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge, Dissenting. I n my vi ew, Powel l

i s ent i t l ed t o habeas based on hi s due pr ocess cl ai m.

The SJ C' s adj udi cat i on of t hat cl ai m consi st ed of a

r ef erence t o Commonweal t h v. J ones, 361 N. E. 2d 1308 ( Mass. 1977) t o

suppor t t he pr oposi t i on t hat , because absence of a l i cense13 i s not

"an el ement of t he cr i me, " i d. at 1311, t he bur den- shi f t i ng devi ce

cr eat ed by Massachuset t s General Laws chapt er 278, sect i on 7

accords wi t h due pr ocess . Commonweal t h v. Powel l , 946 N. E. 2d 114,

124 ( Mass. 2011) , cer t . deni ed, 132 S. Ct . 1739 ( 2012) . The t ask

of assessi ng whet her t hi s par t of t he SJ C' s deci si on was cont r ar y

t o, or i nvol ved an unr easonabl e appl i cat i on of , cl ear l y est abl i shed

f ederal l aw as determi ned by t he Supr eme Cour t , see 28 U. S. C.

§ 2254( d) ( 1) , i s compl i cat ed by t he f act t hat t he pr eci se r ol e of

l i censure under t he Massachuset t s scheme i s unset t l ed,

not wi t hst andi ng J ones' s st at ement . I f l i censur e i s an af f i r mat i ve

def ense under t he Massachuset t s scheme, t hat scheme must accor d

wi t h t he Supr eme Cour t ' s doct r i ne on af f i r mat i ve def enses. On t he

ot her hand, i f l i censur e i s an el ement of t he of f ense t hat i s

subj ect t o pr oof by pr esumpt i on under t he Massachuset t s scheme,

t hat scheme must accord wi t h t he Supreme Cour t ' s doct r i ne on

pr esumpt i ons. I n my opi ni on, J ones and subsequent SJ C cases,

13 The di f f er ence bet ween a Fi r ear m I dent i f i cat i on Car d ( "FI Dcar d") and a l i cense i s not i mpor t ant t o my anal ysi s, nor i s t hedi f f er ence bet ween possessi ng and car r yi ng. For si mpl i ci t y I r ef ert o Powel l as havi ng been char ged wi t h "possessi ng a f i r ear mwi t houta l i cense. "

-37-



i ncl udi ng Powel l ' s, have not spoken cl ear l y on t hi s poi nt , as t he

di st r i ct cour t i n t hi s case r ecogni zed. See Powel l v. Tompki ns,

926 F. Supp. 2d 367, 374- 75 ( D. Mass. 2013) . My f i r st t ask,

t her ef or e, i s t o det er mi ne t he r ol e of l i censur e under t he

Massachuset t s scheme.

I. Role of Licensure Under Massachusetts Scheme

I agr ee wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t t hat t he t ext bot h of

Powel l ' s cr i mi nal compl ai nt and of t he st at ut es under whi ch he was

char ged i ndi cat es t hat l ack of a l i cense i s an el ement of t he

of f ense. The t i t l es of t he r el evant count s ar e "Fi r ear m Wi t hout

FI D Car d, Possess" and "Fi r ear m, Car r y Wi t hout Li cense. " ( emphasi s

added) . Li kewi se, t he descr i pt i ons of t he count s agai nst Powel l

r epeat t he "wi t hout a l i cense" phr ase. Fur t her mor e, one of t he

r el evant st at ut es pr ovi des: "Whoever . . . possesses . . . a

f i r ear m . . . wi t hout compl yi ng wi t h t he [ FI D car d]

pr ovi si ons . . . shal l be puni shed by i mpr i sonment . . . . " Mass.

Gen. Laws ch. 269, § 10( h) ( 1) ( emphasi s added) . The other r el evant

st at ut e pr ovi des: "Whoever . . . has i n hi s possessi on . . . a

f i rearm . . . wi t hout . . . havi ng i n ef f ect a l i cense . . . shal l

be puni shed by i mpr i sonment . . . . " I d. § 10( a) ( emphasi s added) .

Readi ng t he t ext of t hese count s and st at ut es t o say t hat

l ack of a l i cense i s an el ement of t he of f ense mi ght appear

i nconsi st ent wi t h t he t ext of Massachuset t s Gener al Laws chapt er

278, sect i on 7, but i t i s not . That sect i on pr ovi des: "A def endant

-38-



i n a cri mi nal pr osecut i on, r el yi ng f or hi s j ust i f i cat i on upon a

l i cense . . . , shal l pr ove t he same; and, unt i l so pr oved, t he

pr esumpt i on shal l be t hat he i s not so aut hor i zed. " I d. ch. 278,

§ 7. By i t s own t erms, t he r equi r ement t hat a def endant pr ove a

l i cense appl i es onl y t o "[ a] def endant . . . r el yi ng f or hi s

j ust i f i cat i on upon a l i cense. " I d. ( emphasi s added) . To r el y on

a l i cense f or a " j ust i f i cat i on, " as that t erm i s general l y

under st ood i n cr i mi nal l aw, means t o r el y on a l i cense f or a

def ense. See Model Penal Code § 3. 01( 1) ( "[ J ] ust i f i cat i on i s an

af f i r mat i ve def ense. " ) ; Bl ack' s Law Di ct i onar y 977 ( 10t h ed. 2014)

( def i ni ng "j ust i f i cat i on" as "[ a] showi ng, i n cour t , of a

suf f i ci ent r eason why a def endant act ed i n a way that , i n t he

absence of t he r eason, woul d const i t ut e t he of f ense wi t h whi ch t he

def endant i s char ged") . To say t hat a def endant must pr ove

l i censur e i n t hose i nst ances when he r el i es on a l i cense f or hi s

def ense i mpl i es t hat t her e may be ot her i nst ances i n whi ch

l i censur e i s not vi ewed as a def ense, and i n t hose i nst ances t he

def endant may not need t o pr ove i t . Ot herwi se, t here woul d have

been no need f or t he l egi sl at ur e t o i ncl ude t he l i mi t i ng l anguage.

See Ropes & Gr ay LLP v. J al bert , 910 N. E. 2d 330, 336 (Mass. 2009)

( r ecogni zi ng t hat under Massachuset t s l aw st at ut es ar e const r ued t o

avoi d sur pl usage) . Thus, t he t ext of sect i on 7, st andi ng al one, i s

not pr obat i ve of whet her l i censur e i s an el ement or a def ense i n

t he par t i cul ar cont ext of gun possessi on cr i mes.

-39-



Mor eover , ot her cases, di st i ngui shabl e f r om Powel l ' s,

exempl i f y how l i censur e mi ght be rai sed as a def ense, t r i gger i ng

appl i cat i on of sect i on 7. Bef or e i nt r oduci ng t hese cases, i t

shoul d be not ed t hat sect i on 7 i s a sect i on of gener al

appl i cabi l i t y, appear i ng i n t he chapt er gover ni ng t r i al pr ocedur e

and pr oceedi ngs bef ore j udgement . See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278.

The sect i on' s f ul l t i t l e i s, "Burden To Pr ove Li cense or Admi ssi on

To Pr act i ce as At t or ney at Law, " and, i n i t s ent i r et y, i t provi des,

"A def endant i n a cr i mi nal pr osecut i on, r el yi ng f or hi s

j ust i f i cat i on upon a l i cense, appoi ntment , admi ssi on t o pract i ce as

an at t or ney at l aw, or aut hor i t y, shal l pr ove t he same; and, unt i l

so pr oved, t he pr esumpt i on shal l be t hat he i s not so aut hor i zed. "

I d. § 7.

I n Commonweal t h v. O' Connel l , t he def endant was convi ct ed

of f or ger y. See 783 N. E. 2d 417, 422 ( Mass. 2003) . The

Massachuset t s st at ut e cr i mi nal i zi ng f or ger y pr ovi des: "Whoever ,

wi t h i nt ent t o i nj ur e or def r aud, f al sel y . . . f or ges . . .

[ cer t ai n t ypes of document s] shal l be puni shed by

i mpr i sonment . . . . " Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 267, § 1. Accor di ng t o

t he SJ C: "The el ement s of t he cr i me of f or ger y ar e ( 1) f al sel y

maki ng al l or par t of a document or i nst r ument ; ( 2) wi t h t he i nt ent

t o def r aud. " O' Connel l , 783 N. E. 2d at 424 n. 9 ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) .

Despi t e t he f act t hat t he cr i mi nal pr ohi bi t i on does not ment i on

"aut hor i t y" ( whi ch, under sect i on 7, i s t he equi val ent of

-40-



l i censur e) , t he def endant i n O' Connel l t r i ed t o ar gue t hat l ack of

aut hor i t y t o cr eat e t he r el evant document s was an el ement of t he

cr i me, r equi r i ng pr oof by t he pr osecut i on. The SJ C di sagr eed. See

i d. at 423- 24. Ci t i ng sect i on 7, t he SJ C sai d t hat "aut hor i t y may

be rai sed as a def ense, and, i f so r ai sed, t he Commonweal t h t hen

bear s t he bur den of pr ovi ng beyond a reasonabl e doubt t he absence

of aut hor i t y. " I d. at 424.

Si mi l ar l y, i n Commonweal t h v. Br unel l e, t he def endant was

convi ct ed of per f or mi ng an i l l egal abor t i on. See 277 N. E. 2d 826,

828 ( Mass. 1972) . The r el evant s t at ut e pr ovi des, " [ w] hoever , wi t h

i nt ent t o pr ocur e the mi scar r i age of a woman, unl awf ul l y

admi ni st er s t o her , or advi ses or pr escr i bes f or her , or causes any

poi son, dr ug, medi ci ne or ot her noxi ous t hi ng t o be t aken by

her . . . shal l . . . be puni shed by i mpr i sonment . . . . " Mass.

Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 19. Not abl y, t he st at ut e does not say t hat

per f or mi ng any of t hese act i ons "wi t hout a l i cense" or "wi t hout

aut hor i t y" const i t ut es t he cr i me. As t he SJ C expl ai ned, ci t i ng

sect i on 7, "[ i ] n [ a] pr osecut i on under c. 272, s 19, [ t he

def endant ] had t he bur den of comi ng f orward wi t h evi dence that he,

i n some ci r cumst ances, mi ght have . . . a def ence or j ust i f i cat i on

f or act i ng i n appar ent vi ol at i on of t he br oad pr ohi bi t i on i n s 19

( as, f or exampl e, showi ng t hat he had a l i cense to pr act i ce

medi ci ne i n Massachuset t s) . . . . " Br unel l e, 277 N. E. 2d at 829.

-41-



Unl i ke t he st at ut es under whi ch Powel l was convi ct ed, t he

st at ut es at i ssue i n O' Connel l and Br unel l e di d not i ncl ude t he

"wi t hout a l i cense" l anguage. I t was t hus cl ear i n t hose cases,

unl i ke i n Powel l ' s, t hat , wer e t he def endant t o i nvoke l i censur e,

he woul d need t o do so as a def ense, t r i gger i ng appl i cat i on of

sect i on 7.

I n shor t , i f det er mi ni ng t he el ement s of t he gun

possessi on of f ense depended onl y on r eadi ng t he cr i mi nal compl ai nt

and st at ut es, I woul d hol d t hat l ack of a l i cense i s an el ement of

t he cr i me. But I do not wr i t e on a cl ean sl at e: The SJ C i n J ones

sai d t hat l ack of a l i cense i s not an el ement of t he of f ense. 361

N. E. 2d at 1311. The di st r i ct cour t her e not ed t hi s Massachuset t s

st at e cour t i nt er pr et at i on, but af f or ded i t no def er ence on t he

gr ound t hat i t "def [ i ed] t he pl ai n r eadi ng of bot h t he r el evant

f i r ear ms st at ut es and Powel l ' s cr i mi nal compl ai nt . " Powel l , 926 F.

Supp. 2d at 375. I concl ude t hat t he SJ C' s st at ement i n J ones does

not pr ecl ude t he det er mi nat i on t hat l ack of a l i cense i s an el ement

of t he of f ense, but I do not adopt t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r easoni ng.

A f eder al cour t on habeas r evi ew cannot i gnor e a hi gh cour t ' s

i nt er pr et at i on of i t s st at e' s st at ut es si mpl y because, i n t he

f eder al cour t ' s opi ni on, t hat i nt er pr et at i on def i es t he st at ut es'

pl ai n meani ng. I agr ee t hat J ones' s i nt er pr et at i on def i es t he

st at ut es' pl ai n meani ng, but t hat i s not why I r ef use t o f ol l ow

J ones' s st at ement . I nst ead, I f eel f r ee t o depar t f r om J ones

-42-



because, as I det ai l bel ow, si nce J ones was deci ded, t he SJ C has

not spoken uni f or ml y on whet her t he l ack of a l i cense i s an el ement

of t he of f ense.

Af t er J ones was deci ded, i n Commonweal t h v. Tool e, 448

N. E. 2d 1264 ( Mass. 1983) , t he SJ C was present ed wi t h t he f ol l owi ng

f act s: Af t er pul l i ng over t he def endant ' s t r uck, as par t of a

r out i ne f r i sk, a pol i ce of f i cer f ound an empt y hol st er and an

ammuni t i on cl i p on t he def endant ' s per son. I d. at 1265- 66. Thi s

pr ompt ed t he pol i ce t o sear ch t he t r uck, r eveal i ng a f i r ear mbehi nd

t he seat . I d. at 1266. Af t er t he sear ch, t he def endant was asked

i f he had an FI D Car d, whi ch he di d not . I d. The SJ C hel d t hat ,

si nce t here was no showi ng t hat t he pol i ce had any reason t o

bel i eve t hat t he def endant ' s possi bl e possessi on of a gun was a

cr i me - - not havi ng asked t he def endant bef ore t he sear ch whether

he had an FI D card - - no pr obabl e cause or exi gent ci r cumst ances

exi st ed t o j ust i f y t he war r ant l ess sear ch. I d. at 1268. Sai d t he

SJ C:

The empty hol st er and ammuni t i on f ound on t hedef endant cer t ai nl y creat ed pr obabl e cause t obel i eve t hat t her e was a gun i n t he cab. Butcar r yi ng a . 45 cal i ber r evol ver i s notnecessar i l y a cr i me. A possi bl e cr i me wascar r yi ng a gun wi t hout a l i cense to car r yf i r ear ms. . . However , t he pol i ce di d not

l ear n t hat t he def endant had no f i r ear mi dent i f i cat i on car d unt i l af t er t he sear ch.

I d. ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) .

-43-



Because J ones est abl i shed t hat l ack of a l i cense coul d be

pr esumed t o be an el ement of t he of f ense, whereas Tool e i mpl i ed

t hat i t coul d not , i n Commonweal t h v. Cout ur e, t he Commonweal t h

ar gued t hat t he t wo cases l ed t o "an ' i r r at i onal ' r esul t , namel y,

t hat a pol i ce of f i cer i n t he st r eet must show mor e i n det er mi ni ng

t hat a gun i s unl awf ul l y car r i ed t han a pr osecut or needs t o pr ove

t o obt ai n a convi ct i on. " 552 N. E. 2d 538, 540 ( Mass. 1990) . The SJ C

at t empt ed t o r econci l e t he cases as i n t he f ol l owi ng manner :

J ones deal t wi t h t he al l ocat i on of bur dens i nt he cont ext of a cri mi nal t r i al . Thepar t i cul ar bur den t o whi ch . . . J onesper t ai ns i s not t he bur den of pr oof , butmerel y t he bur den of comi ng f orward wi t hevi dence suf f i ci ent t o r ai se an i ssue of f act .. . Wher e t he def endant at t r i al has hadever y oppor t uni t y t o r espond t o t heCommonweal t h' s char ge t hat t he def endant wasunl awf ul l y car r yi ng a handgun, wher e thedef endant need onl y pr oduce that sl i p of paperi ndi cat i ng t hat he was l i censed t o car r y thatgun, and where i nst ead the def endant pr oducesno evi dence t o t hat ef f ect , t he j ur y ar eent i t l ed t o pr esume that t he def endant i ndeeddi d not have a l i cense t o car r y t he gun, andt he Commonweal t h need present no addi t i onalevi dence t o pr ove t hat poi nt . Thi s scenar i oi s a f ar cr y f r om a def endant who, havi ngmerel y been seen i n publ i c wi t h a handgun, andwi t hout any oppor t uni t y t o r espond as t owhet her he has a l i cense, i s f or ced out of hi svehi cl e at gunpoi nt and subj ect ed t o ani nvasi ve sear ch. . . . The mer e possessi on of a handgun was not suf f i ci ent t o gi ve r i se to a

r easonabl e suspi ci on that t he def endant wasi l l egal l y car r yi ng t hat gun, and t he st op wast her ef or e i mproper under Four t h Amendmentpr i nci pl es.

I d. at 540- 41 ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) .

-44-



Af t er Cout r e, i n Commonweal t h v. Al var ado, t he SJ C

r ei t er at ed:

Car r yi ng a gun i s not a cr i me. Car r yi ng af i rearm wi t hout a l i cense ( or ot her

aut hor i zat i on) i s. . . . Car r yi ng a weaponconceal ed i n a t owel , a bag, or a knapsack,f or exampl e, . . . i s not a cri me i n t hi sSt at e. The suspect ed cr i me i n suchci r cumst ances can onl y be t he car r yi ng of anunl i censed weapon, because car r yi ng aconceal ed weapon i s not , st andi ng al one, ani ndi cat i on t hat cr i mi nal conduct has occur r edor i s cont empl at ed.

667 N. E. 2d 856, 859 (Mass. 1996) .

Then, i n Commonweal t h v. Gouse, 965 N. E. 2d 774 ( Mass .

2012) , t he SJ C at t empt ed t o downpl ay t he si gni f i cance of deci si ons

l i ke Cout ur e and Al var ado, whi ch seemed to have cal l ed i nt o

quest i on J ones' s st at ement t hat l ack of a l i cense i s not an el ement

of t he of f ense. Ther e, t he SJ C concl uded t hat t he el ement s of t he

of f ense ar e si mpl y ( 1) possessi on of ( 2) a f i r ear m, and sai d t hat

st at ement s t o t he cont r ar y made i n ot her cont ext s " do[ ] not

di mi ni sh thi s concl usi on wi t h r egar d t o the essent i al el ement s of

t he cr i me. " I d. at 787 n. 17. Ref er r i ng t o Cout ur e and Al var ado,

t he SJ C i n Gouse sai d:

I n t hose cases, we concl uded t hat t he merepr esence of a f i r ear m wi t hout mor e di d notf ur ni sh pr obabl e cause or r easonabl e suspi ci on

suf f i ci ent t o j ust i f y t he sei zur e of ani ndi vi dual by a pol i ce of f i cer i n t he f i el d;we were not asked t o exami ne the requi r ement sof § 10( a) i n t he cont ext of t he pr oof necessar y at a t r i al . Ther e i s, t her ef or e, nomeani ngf ul conf l i ct between t he manner i nwhi ch t hose cases, and t he ones [ t hat i ncl ude

-45-



t he cr i me as consi st i ng of onl y t wo el ement s] ,descr i be t he cr i me of unl awf ul possessi on of af i r ear m. . . . Our r espect f or ani ndi vi dual ' s r i ght s under t he Four t hAmendment . . . agai nst unr easonabl e sear chesand sei zur es on t he st r eet has no bear i ng on

t he al l ocat i on of bur dens at t r i al .

I d. ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .

I r ecogni ze t hat i t i s t he pr ovi nce of t he st at es t o

def i ne cr i mes and def enses and t o al l ocat e bur dens. But f r omwhat

I can t el l , Massachuset t s si mpl y has not pr ovi ded a cl ear

def i ni t i on of t he of f ense of i l l egal f i r ear m possessi on. I

under st and t hat pr ot ect i ng i ndi vi dual s' r i ght s agai nst unr easonabl e

sear ches and al l ocat i ng bur dens at t r i al ar e di st i nct ent er pr i ses,

but I do not see how t hi s di st i nct i on per mi t s a st at e cour t ,

consi st ent wi t h due pr ocess, t o i nt er pr et a cr i mi nal st at ut e t o

have t hr ee el ement s i n one cont ext but t o have onl y t wo el ement s i n

anot her . See J ohnson v. Goméz, No. C 96- 2913 CAL, 1997 WL 703770,

at *7 ( N. D. Cal . Oct . 28, 1997) ( not r epor t ed) , af f ' d, 166 F. 3d 343

( 9t h Ci r . 1998) ( "A st at e cour t ' s det er mi nat i on t hat a st at ut or y

pr ovi si on does not char act er i ze an el ement of t he of f ense must

nonet hel ess compor t wi t h due pr ocess. " ( ci t i ng McMi l l an v.

Pennsyl vani a, 477 U. S. 79, 85- 86 ( 1986) ) .

Her e, t hi s cour t i s conf r ont ed wi t h what , t o my

knowl edge, i s a novel scenar i o: The st at e l egi sl at ur e made l ack of

a l i cense an el ement of t he of f ense, wher eas t he stat e j udi ci ar y

has spoken ambi guousl y on t he mat t er . I t shoul d be noted t hat when

-46-



t he Supr eme Cour t has di scussed st at es' aut hor i t y t o def i ne cr i mes

and t o al l ocat e bur dens i n t he past , t he di scussi on has of t en

f ocused on t he st at e' s l egi sl at i ve, not j udi ci al , br anch. For

i nst ance, i n McMi l l an v. Pennsyl vani a, t he Supr eme Cour t sai d, " i n

determi ni ng what f act s must be pr oved beyond a r easonabl e doubt t he

st at e l egi sl at ur e' s def i ni t i on of t he el ement s of t he of f ense i s

usual l y di sposi t i ve: ' [ T] he Due Pr ocess Cl ause r equi r es t he

pr osecut i on t o pr ove beyond a r easonabl e doubt al l of t he el ement s

i ncl uded i n t he def i ni t i on of t he of f ense of whi ch t he def endant i s

char ged. ' " McMi l l an, 477 U. S. at 85 (emphasi s added by McMi l l an)

( quot i ng Pat t er son v. New Yor k, 432 U. S. 197, 210 ( 1977) ) .

I f i nd i t not abl e t hat i n ot her stat es, t he l egi s l at ur e' s

and t he j udi ci ar y' s vi si ons on t hi s subj ect accor d. I ndeed, i n

Gouse t he SJ C sai d t hat l i censur e as an af f i r mat i ve def ense t o

f i r ear mchar ges "has been f ul l y recogni zed i n ot her j ur i sdi ct i ons. "

965 N. E. 2d at 788. I n suppor t of t hi s pr oposi t i on, t he SJ C ci t ed

cases f r om bot h Fl or i da and I ndi ana. I d. An anal ysi s of t hese

cases pr oves r eveal i ng.

FromFl or i da, t he SJ C ci t ed Wat t v. St at e, 31 So. 3d 238

( Fl a. Di st . Ct . App. 2010) , whi ch i t sel f quot ed St at e v. Robar ge,

450 So. 2d 855 ( Fl a. 1984) . When Robarge arose i n 1984, t he

r el evant Fl or i da st at ut e pr ovi ded, "Whoever shal l car r y . . . any

pi stol . . . wi t hout havi ng a l i cense . . . shal l be gui l t y of a

mi sdemeanor . . . . " Fl a. St at . § 790. 05 ( r epeal ed 1987) . I n

-47-



Robar ge, t he St at e ar gued t hat l i censure shoul d be consi der ed an

af f i r mat i ve def ense. 450 So. 2d at 856. The Supr eme Cour t of

Fl or i da f i r st set out t he gener al r ul e f or det er mi ni ng whet her a

st at ut or y except i on i s an el ement of an of f ense or a def ense: " [ I ] f

t her e i s an except i on i n t he enact i ng cl ause, t he par t y pl eadi ng

must show t hat hi s adver sary i s not wi t hi n t he except i on; but , i f

t here be an except i on i n a subsequent cl ause, or a subsequent

st at ut e, t hat i s [ a] mat t er of def ence [ si c] , and i s t o be shown by

t he ot her par t y. " I d. ( quot i ng Baeumel v. St at e, 7 So. 371, 372

( 1890) ) . Because, i n t he Fl or i da st at ut e, t he phr ase "wi t hout

havi ng a l i cense" "except i on" appear ed i n t he "enact i ng cl ause, "

t he Robarge cour t hel d that t he absence of a l i cense was an el ement

of t he cr i me. I d.

Subsequent t o Robar ge, t he Fl or i da l egi sl at ur e amended

t he st at ut or y scheme. Today, one st at ut or y sect i on pr ovi des, "a

person who car r i es a conceal ed weapon . . . commi t s a mi sdemeanor . "

Fl a. St at . § 790. 01( 1) . I n ot her wor ds, t he cur r ent st at ut e

out r i ght l y bans car r yi ng, wi t hout any ment i on of l i censur e.

Anot her st at ut or y subsect i on pr ovi des, "sect i on [ 790. 01] does not

appl y t o a per son l i censed t o car r y a conceal ed weapon . . .

pur suant t o t he pr ovi si ons of s. 790. 06. " I d. § 790. 01( 3) . I n

t ur n, i ndependent sect i on 790. 06( 1) pr ovi des, " [ a] ny per son i n

compl i ance wi t h t he t er ms of [ a] l i cense [ t o car r y] may car r y a

conceal ed weapon or conceal ed f i r ear m not wi t hst andi ng the

-48-



pr ovi si ons of s. 790. 01. " I d. § 790. 06( 1) ( emphasi s added) . These

i ndependent pr ovi si ons pr ovi de t he af f i r mat i ve def ense t o t he

out r i ght ban.

Wat t v. St at e, t he Fl or i da case ci t ed by t he SJ C i n

Gouse, arose under t hi s new st atut ory scheme. 31 So. 3d 238 ( Fl a.

Di st . Ct . App. 2010) . Ther e, t he cour t sai d:

Under t he t erms of t he conceal edweapon/ f i r ear m st at ut e, t he st at e does nothave t he bur den of pr ovi ng t he absence of al i cense as an el ement of t he cr i me. Rat her ,pr oof of a l i cense i s per t i nent onl y as anaf f i r mat i ve def ense. Gener al l y, f or ast at ut or y except i on, such as a l i cense, t oconst i t ut e a def ense under Fl or i da l aw, t heexcept i on "must be i n a cl ause subsequent t ot he enact i ng cl ause of a st at ut e. " . . . Thel i cense def ense i s i n the subsequentcl ause . . . . As such, i t i s an af f i r mat i vedef ense, not an el ement of t he cr i me.

I d. at 242 ( f oot not e omi t t ed) ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) ( quot i ng Robar ge,

450 So. 2d at 856) . As t he cur r ent Massachuset t s scheme i s aki n t o

t he ol d Fl or i da scheme - - l ack of a l i cense i s ment i oned i n t he

ver y sect i on t hat creat es t he cr i mi nal of f ense - - t he SJ C' s

r el i ance i n Gouse on Fl or i da cases was mi spl aced.

As f or I ndi ana cases, t he SJ C i n Gouse, 965 N. E. 2d at

788, ci t ed Tayl or v. St at e, 578 N. E. 2d 664 ( I nd. 1991) , whi ch

i t sel f ci t ed Washi ngt on v. St at e, 517 N. E. 2d 77 ( I nd. 1987) . The

I ndi ana st at ut e at i ssue i n bot h Tayl or and Washi ngt on pr ovi des," [ A] per son shal l not car r y a handgun . . . wi t hout bei ng

l i censed. " I nd. Code § 35- 47- 2- 1( a) . An i ndependent sect i on

pr ovi des, "[ I ] t i s not necessar y . . . t o al l ege t he absence of a

-49-



l i cense . . . . The bur den of pr oof i s on t he def endant t o

pr ove . . . t hat he has a l i cense . . . . " I d. § 35- 47- 2- 24( a) .

I n Washi ngt on, t he Supr eme Cour t of I ndi ana hel d t hat

l ack of a l i cense was not an el ement of t he cr i me, and t hat

possessi on of a l i cense was a def ense on whi ch the def endant bore

t he bur den of pr oof . 517 N. E. 2d at 79. Four year s l at er , i n

Tayl or , t he Supreme Cour t of I ndi ana, i n a t hree- t wo opi ni on,

r ei t er at ed t hat possessi on of a l i cense was a mat t er f or t he

def endant t o est abl i sh as an af f i r mat i ve def ense. 578 N. E. 2d at

666 ( ci t i ng i d. ) . The di ssent ci t ed t he f ol l owi ng pr i nci pl e of

I ndi ana l aw: "When an of f ense i s cr eat ed by st atut e and another

st at ut e or anot her sect i on of t he same st at ut e makes except i ons

t her et o, i t i s not necessar y f or t he pr osecut i on i n t he i ndi ct ment

or af f i davi t t o negat e t he except i on by st at i ng t hat t he def endant

does not come wi t hi n t he same. " I d. at 667 ( DeBr ul er , J . ,

concur r i ng i n par t and di ssent i ng i n par t ) ( quot i ng Day v. St at e,

241 N. E. 2d 357, 359 ( 1968) ) . Because, i n t he I ndi ana st at ut e, t he

"wi t hout bei ng l i censed" l anguage i s f ound i n t he enact i ng cl ause,

t he di ssent ar gued t hat t he pr osecut i on shoul d bear t he bur den of

est abl i shi ng t hat t he def endant l acked a l i cense. I d. I t

consequent l y cal l ed f or Washi ngt on v. St at e t o be over r ul ed. I d.

Sever al t hi ngs about t he I ndi ana scheme ar e not abl e.Fi r st , t he i ndependent pr ovi so i n t he I ndi ana code i s cl ear er t han

sect i on 7 of chapt er 278 i n i t s i nt ent t o cast l i censur e as an

af f i r mat i ve def ense. I t per t ai ns onl y t o gun possessi on

-50-



pr osecut i ons, appear s i n t he same chapt er as t he subst ant i ve

pr ohi bi t i on, and expl i ci t l y rel i eves t he pr osecut i on of al l egi ng

l ack of a l i cense. Unl i ke sect i on 7, whi ch, as di scussed above,

appl i es onl y when l i censur e i s r ai sed as a def ense, t he I ndi ana

pr ovi so expl i ci t l y makes l i censur e a def ense. I n addi t i on, a

maj or i t y of t he I ndi ana Supr eme Cour t , unl i ke t he SJ C, has spoken

consi st ent l y wi t h r espect t o t he non- el ement st at us of l i censur e.

Mor eover , despi t e t hi s cl ar i t y and consi st ency, t he pr oposi t i on

t hat l i censur e i s an af f i r mat i ve def ense gar ner ed onl y a bar e

maj or i t y of t he I ndi ana Supr eme Cour t i n Tayl or , and, so f ar as I

can t el l , no f eder al cour t has been asked on habeas r evi ew t o

assess whet her I ndi ana' s scheme comport s wi t h due pr ocess .

Gi ven t he cl ear t ext of Powel l ' s cr i mi nal compl ai nt and

t he Massachuset t s st at ut es, t he uncl ear gl oss on t hose st at ut es

suppl i ed by t he SJ C, and t he compar i son t o ot her j ur i sdi ct i ons

( i nvi t ed by the SJ C i n Gouse) , I concl ude that i n Massachuset t s, a

l ack of a l i cense i s an el ement of t he of f ense of possessi ng a gun

wi t hout a l i cense.

Havi ng r eached t hi s concl usi on, I must deci de whet her t he

SJ C' s t r eat ment of t hat el ement i n Powel l ' s case was cont r ar y to,

or i nvol ved an unr easonabl e appl i cat i on of , cl ear l y est abl i shed

f ederal l aw as determi ned by the Supr eme Cour t . Powel l woul d r eadt he SJ C' s opi ni on si mpl y t o say t hat he bor e t he bur den of pr oof on

t he l i censur e el ement . On t hat r eadi ng, t he opi ni on woul d cl ear l y

be cont r ar y t o f eder al l aw. Af t er al l , i t has been cl ear si nce I n

-51-



r e Wi nshi p that a st ate may not pl ace on t he def endant t he bur den

of di sprovi ng an el ement of an of f ense. 397 U. S. 358, 364 ( 1970) .

Never t hel ess, t he di st r i ct cour t , i n Powel l , had a mor e

char i t abl e vi ew of t he SJ C' s def ense of t he Massachuset t s scheme

See 926 F. Supp. 2d at 376. Looki ng past J ones' s er r oneous

st at ement t hat l i censur e i s not an el ement but an af f i r mat i ve

def ense, t he di st r i ct cour t hel d J ones and sect i on 7 t o per mi t t he

l ack of a l i cense el ement t o be pr esumed. I d. I ndeed, sect i on 7

pr ovi des t hat " t he pr esumpt i on shal l be t hat [ a def endant ] i s not

[ l i censed] . " Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, § 7. The def endant can

r ebut t hi s pr esumpt i on by adduci ng evi dence of a l i cense, so the

pr esumpt i on, i n ef f ect , shi f t s onl y t he bur den of pr oduct i on of

l i censur e ont o t he def endant , l eavi ng t he bur den of per suasi on wi t h

t he pr osecut i on. I now anal yze de novo whether t he SJ C' s

di sposi t i on of Powel l ' s due pr ocess cl ai mcompor t s wi t h t he cl ear l y

est abl i shed f eder al l aw of pr esumpt i ons.

II. Analysis of SJC's Opinion Under Federal Presumption Law

A. SJC's Discussion of Federal Presumption Law

I n r ej ect i ng Powel l ' s due pr ocess cl ai m, t he SJ C di d not

ci t e any Supr eme Cour t cases. See 946 N. E. 2d at 124. I nst ead, i t

ci t ed i t s pr evi ous di scussi on i n J ones. I d. I n J ones, and, by

r ef er ence, i n Powel l , t he SJ C, i n uphol di ng t he const i t ut i onal i t y

of t he Massachuset t s scheme, r el i ed on t he Supreme Cour t cases,

Mul l aney v. Wi l bur , 421 U. S. 684 ( 1975) , and Mor r i son v.

Cal i f or ni a, 291 U. S. 82 ( 1934) . See 361 N. E. 2d at 1311- 12.

-52-



Mul l aney hel d t hat i t vi ol at es due pr ocess f or a st at e t o

r equi r e a def endant charged wi t h mur der t o pr ove, i n an at t empt t o

r educe the charge to mansl aught er , t hat he act ed i n t he heat of

passi on on sudden pr ovocat i on. 421 U. S. at 703- 04. Thi s hol di ng

compor t s wi t h Wi nshi p. See 397 U. S. at 364. I n J ones, t he SJ C

r el i ed on t wo f oot not es f r omMul l aney. See 361 N. E. 2d at 1311- 12.

I n one, t he Supr eme Cour t r ecogni zed, " [ m] any St at es do requi r e t he

def endant t o show t hat t her e i s ' some evi dence' i ndi cat i ng t hat he

act ed i n t he heat of passi on bef or e r equi r i ng t he pr osecut i on t o

negate t hi s el ement by pr ovi ng t he absence of passi on beyond a

r easonabl e doubt . Not hi ng i n t hi s opi ni on i s i nt ended t o af f ect

t hat r equi r ement . " 421 U. S. at 702 n. 28 ( ci t at i ons and i nt er nal

quotat i on marks omi t t ed) .

I n t he ot her f oot not e, t he Cour t sai d:

Gener al l y i n a cr i mi nal case the pr osecut i onbear s both t he pr oduct i on bur den and thepersuasi on bur den. I n some i nst ances,however , i t i s ai ded by a pr esumpt i on or aper mi ssi bl e i nf er ence. These pr ocedur aldevi ces r equi r e ( i n t he case of a pr esumpt i on)or per mi t ( i n t he case of an i nf er ence) t het r i er of f act t o concl ude t hat t he pr osecut i onhas met i t s bur den of pr oof wi t h r espect t ot he pr esumed or i nf er r ed f act by havi ngsat i sf actor i l y est abl i shed ot her f act s. Thus,i n ef f ect t hey requi r e t he def endant t opr esent some evi dence cont est i ng t he otherwi sepr esumed or i nf er r ed f act . Si nce t hey shi f t

t he pr oduct i on bur den t o the def endant , t hesedevi ces must sat i sf y cer t ai n due pr ocessr equi r ement s.

I d. at 702 n. 31 ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . I n ot her wor ds, whi l e

Mul l aney pr ohi bi t ed a st at e f r om shi f t i ng ont o t he def endant t he

-53-



ul t i mat e bur den of pr oof of an el ement , t he SJ C i nvoked t hose par t s

of Mul l aney wher e t he Cour t expl ai ned t hat i t s r ul i ng woul d st i l l

per mi t a st at e t o shi f t t o t he def endant t he bur den of i ni t i al

pr oduct i on, so l ong as t he bur den of per suasi on r est ed wi t h t he

pr osecut i on.

Of cour se, as ref l ected i n t he second Mul l aney passage

quoted above, t he Cour t noted t hat t here ar e due pr ocess

const r ai nt s on t he st at e' s abi l i t y t o shi f t t he bur den of

pr oduct i on t hr ough use of pr esumpt i on. I n ar t i cul at i ng t hose

const r ai nt s, t he SJ C i n J ones cur i ousl y l ooked not t o t he cases

ci t ed by Mul l aney, but i nst ead t o Mor r i son v. Cal i f or ni a, whi ch t he

SJ C al l eged pr ovi ded " [ a] cl assi c st at ement " of t he due pr ocess

l i mi t s on shi f t i ng t he bur den of pr oduct i on. J ones, 361 N. E. 2d at

1312. J ones quot ed t he f ol l owi ng passage f or m Mor r i son:

The l i mi t s ar e i n subst ance t hese, t hat t hest at e shal l have pr oved enough t o make i t j ustf or t he def endant t o be requi r ed t o r epel whathas been r poved [ si c] wi t h excuse orexpl anat i on, or at l east t hat upon a bal anci ngof conveni ence or of t he oppor t uni t i es f orknowl edge t he shi f t i ng of t he bur den wi l l bef ound t o be an ai d t o the accuser wi t houtsubj ect i ng t he accused t o har dshi p oroppr essi on.

I d. ( cor r ect i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Mor r i son, 291 U. S. at 88- 89) .

The SJ C cont i nued on t o quot e Mor r i son: "Such a shi f t [ i n t he

bur den of pr oduct i on] may be pr oper i f t her e i s a ' mani f est

di spar i t y i n conveni ence of pr oof and oppor t uni t y f or knowl edge,

as, f or i nst ance, wher e a gener al pr ohi bi t i on i s appl i cabl e t o

-54-



ever y one who i s unabl e to br i ng hi msel f wi t hi n t he range of an

except i on. ' " I d. ( quot i ng 291 U. S. at 91) .

However , J ones' s i nvocat i on of Mor r i son as t he

const i t ut i onal t est f or shi f t i ng t he bur den of pr oduct i on t hr ough

pr esumpt i on i s pr obl emat i c. The f i r st Mor r i son passage quot ed by

t he SJ C per t ai ns t o t he l i mi t s on shi f t i ng not t he bur den of

pr oduct i on, but r at her t he ul t i mat e bur den of pr oof . See 291 U. S.

at 88- 89. And t he second passage quoted by t he SJ C i s i ncompl ete.

The excer pt i n t he SJ C' s opi ni on f ocuses on di spar i t y i n

conveni ence of pr oof and oppor t uni t y f or knowl edge as j ust i f yi ng a

shi f t of t he pr oduct i on bur den. I n f act , Mor r i son sai d, "For a

t r ansf er of t he bur den, exper i ence must t each t hat t he evi dence

hel d t o be i ncul pat or y has at l east a si ni st er si gni f i cance, or , i f

t hi s at t i mes be l acki ng, t her e must be i n any event a mani f est

di spar i t y i n conveni ence of pr oof and oppor t uni t y f or

knowl edge . . . . " I d. at 90- 91 ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . J ones' s

sel ect i ve quot at i on over l ooks t he r equi r ement t hat " t he evi dence

hel d t o be i ncul pat or y ha[ ve] at l east a si ni st er si gni f i cance. "

Thi s r equi r ement was i mpor t ant t o t he hol di ng i n Mor r i son. Ther e,

t he def endant s were convi ct ed under a st atut e maki ng i t a cr i me t o

possess l and i f one was bot h a nonci t i zen and i nel i gi bl e f or

ci t i zenshi p. I d. at 83. The Cour t hel d unconst i t ut i onal a schemeunder whi ch t he st ate needed t o pr ove onl y possessi on of l and,

l eavi ng pr oof of ei t her ci t i zenshi p or el i gi bi l i t y f or ci t i zenshi p

t o t he def endant . I d. at 97- 98. The Cour t expl ai ned:

-55-



Possessi on of agr i cul t ur al l and by one notshown t o be i nel i gi bl e f or ci t i zenshi p i s anact t hat car r i es wi t h i t not even a hi nt of cr i mi nal i t y. To pr ove such possessi on wi t houtmor e i s t o take har dl y a st ep f or war d i nsuppor t of an i ndi ct ment . No such pr obabi l i t yof wr ongdoi ng gr ows out of t he naked f act of

use or occupat i on as t o awaken a bel i ef t hatt he user or occupi er i s gui l t y i f he f ai l s t ocome f orward wi t h excuse or expl anat i on. Thel egi sl at ur e may go a good way i n r ai si ng ( apr esumpt i on) or i n changi ng the bur den of pr oof , but t her e ar e l i mi t s. What i s pr ovedmust be so r el at ed t o what i s i nf er r ed i n t hecase of a t r ue pr esumpt i on as t o be at l east awar ni ng si gnal accor di ng t o the t eachi ngs of exper i ence.

I d. at 90 ( ci t at i ons and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . I n

ot her wor ds, t o suppor t i t s hol di ng, t he Cour t f ocused l ess on t he

di spar i t y i n conveni ence of pr oof , and mor e on t he f act s t hat

possessi on of l and - - t he evi dence hel d t o be i ncul pat or y - - ( 1)

l acked a si ni st er si gni f i cance, and ( 2) was not r el at ed t o t he

possessor ' s ci t i zenshi p st at us.

B. Federal Presumption Law

Had t he SJ C i n J ones l ooked not t o Mor r i son, but t o t he

cases ci t ed by Mul l aney i t sel f i n suppor t of t he pr oposi t i on t hat

t her e ar e due pr ocess const r ai nt s on t he st at e' s abi l i t y t o shi f t

even t he bur den of pr oduct i on, t he SJ C woul d have had t he gui dance

of Bar nes v. Uni t ed St at es, 412 U. S. 837 (1973) and Tur ner v.

Uni t ed St at es, 396 U. S. 398 ( 1970) . See Mul l aney, 421 U. S. at 702

n. 31.

The Bar nes Court commenced wi t h "a r evi ew of . . .

deci si ons[ , i ncl udi ng Tur ner , ] whi ch have consi der ed t he val i di t y

-56-



under t he Due Pr ocess Cl ause of cr i mi nal l aw pr esumpt i ons, " 412

U. S. at 841, and concl uded t hat " [ t ] he t eachi ng of t he [ r evi ewed]

cases i s not al t oget her cl ear , " i d. at 843. Some cases, l i ke

Uni t ed St at es v. Gai ney, 380 U. S. 63 ( 1965) , appl i ed t he t est f i r st

announced i n Tot v. Uni t ed St at es, 319 U. S. 463, 467 (1943) t hat

t here must be a " r at i onal connect i on between t he f act pr oved and

t he ul t i mat e f act pr esumed. "

I pause her e t o r evi ew t he t est est abl i shed by Tot .

Ther e, t he gover nment urged t he Cour t t o hol d t hat t wo al t er nat i ve

t est s gover ned t he val i di t y of pr esumpt i ons. "The f i r st i s t hat

t her e be a r at i onal connect i on bet ween the f act s pr oved and the

f act pr esumed; t he second that of comparat i ve conveni ence of

pr oduci ng evi dence of t he ul t i mat e f act . " Tot , 319 U. S. at 467.

But , accor di ng t o Tot :

We are of opi ni on t hat t hese are noti ndependent t est s but t hat t he f i r st i scont r ol l i ng and t he second but a cor ol l ar y.Under our deci si ons, a st at ut or y pr esumpt i oncannot be sust ai ned i f t her e be no rat i onalconnect i on between t he f act pr oved and t heul t i mat e f act pr esumed, i f t he i nf er ence of t he one f r om pr oof of t he ot her i s ar bi t r ar ybecause of l ack of connect i on between the t woi n common exper i ence.

I d. at 467- 68. Of t he many cases ci t ed i n suppor t of t hi s

st at ement , t he most r ecent was Mor r i son v. Cal i f or ni a. See i d. at

468 n. 9. To r ei t er at e, t he SJ C i n J ones f ocused excl usi vel y on

what Mor r i son had sai d r egardi ng compar at i ve conveni ence of

pr oduci ng evi dence, and i gnored what Morr i son had sai d r egardi ng

-57-



t he need f or a connect i on between t he i nnocuous f act pr oved and the

cul pabl e f act pr esumed. I n l i ght of Tot ' s st at ement t hat t he

"compar at i ve conveni ence" t est i s "but a cor ol l ar y" of t he

"cont r ol l i ng" "r at i onal connect i on" t est - - a st at ement t hat , as

not ed above, r ef l ect s t he ver y r easoni ng of Mor r i son i t sel f - - t he

SJ C' s sol e f ocus on comparat i ve conveni ence was mi sgui ded.

Anot her case revi ewed by Bar nes, Lear y v. Uni t ed St at es,

pur por t ed t o expound on Tot ' s " r at i onal connect i on" t est by sayi ng

t hat a "pr esumpt i on must be r egar ded as ' i r r at i onal ' or

' ar bi t r ar y, ' and hence unconst i t ut i onal , unl ess i t can at l east be

sai d wi t h subst ant i al assurance t hat t he pr esumed f act i s mor e

l i kel y than not t o f l ow f r omt he pr oved f act on whi ch i t i s made t o

depend. " 395 U. S. 6, 36 ( 1969) ( emphasi s added) . I n a f oot not e,

t he Lear y Cour t sai d t hat , si nce t he i nf er ence at i ssue f ai l ed t o

sat i sf y t hi s "mor e l i kel y t han not " gl oss on Tot ' s "r at i onal

connect i on" t est , t he Cour t di d not need t o r each t he quest i on

whet her a pr esumpt i on bei ng used t o pr ove an el ement of a cr i me

must sat i sf y not onl y t he "mor e l i kel y t han not " gl oss, but al so

t he " r easonabl e doubt " st andar d. I d. at 36 n. 64. Bot h t he f i nal

case r evi ewed by Barnes, Tur ner v. Uni t ed St ates, and t he Barnes

case i t sel f not ed t hat Lear y reserved t he quest i on whet her t he

"mor e l i kel y t han not " or " r easonabl e doubt " st andar d cont r ol l ed i ncr i mi nal cases, but t hey too l ef t t hi s quest i on open by concl udi ng

t hat t he pr esumpt i ons under r evi ew sat i sf i ed even the mor e

-58-



exi st ence of an el ement of t he cr i me) f r omproof by t he pr osecut i on

of a "basi c" or "evi dent i ar y" f act . I d. at 156- 57. Because such

a per mi ssi ve pr esumpt i on "does not shi f t t he bur den of pr oof , i t

af f ect s t he appl i cat i on of t he ' beyond a r easonabl e doubt ' st andar d

onl y i f , under t he f act s of t he case, t her e i s no r at i onal way t he

t r i er coul d make t he connect i on per mi t t ed. " I d. at 157. A

mandatory pr esumpt i on, however , "may af f ect not onl y t he st r engt h

of t he ' no reasonabl e doubt ' bur den but al so t he pl acement of t hat

bur den; i t t el l s t he t r i er t hat he or t hey must f i nd t he el ement al

f act upon pr oof of t he basi c f act , at l east unl ess t he def endant

has come f orward wi t h some evi dence t o r ebut t he presumed

connect i on bet ween t he t wo f acts. " I d.

The Cour t went on t o expl ai n t hat t he cl ass of mandat or y

pr esumpt i ons can be f ur t her di vi ded between "pr esumpt i ons t hat

mer el y shi f t t he bur den of pr oduct i on t o the def endant , f ol l owi ng

t he sat i sf act i on of whi ch t he ul t i mat e bur den of per suasi on r et ur ns

t o t he pr osecut i on; and pr esumpt i ons t hat ent i r el y shi f t t he bur den

of pr oof t o t he def endant . " I d. at n. 16. Wi t h r espect t o mandat or y

pr esumpt i ons t hat shi f t onl y t he bur den of pr oduct i on, t he Cour t

sai d t hat " [ t ] o t he extent . . . [ t he] pr esumpt i on i mposes an

ext r emel y l ow bur den of pr oduct i on - - e. g. , bei ng sat i sf i ed by

' any' evi dence - - i t may wel l be t hat i t s i mpact i s no gr eat er t hant hat of a per mi ssi ve i nf er ence, and i t may be pr oper t o anal yze i t

as such. " I d. To deci de what t ype of pr esumpt i on i s i nvol ved i n a

case, sai d t he Cour t , "t he j ur y i nst r uct i ons wi l l gener al l y be

-60-



cont r ol l i ng, al t hough t hei r i nt er pr et at i on may requi r e r ecour se t o

t he st at ut e i nvol ved and t he cases deci ded under i t . " I d.

C. The Presumption at Issue

I now t ur n t o t he pr esumpt i on at pl ay i n Powel l ' s case.

Because Powel l had a bench t r i al , no j ur y i nst r uct i ons wer e gi ven.

As a r esul t , t he di st r i ct cour t r esor t ed t o bot h t he t ext of

sect i on 7 and t he surr oundi ng casel aw. See Powel l , 926 F. Supp. 2d

at 376- 77. The di st r i ct cour t r ead sect i on 7 - - whi ch pr ovi des

t hat , unt i l l i censur e i s pr oved, "t he pr esumpt i on shal l be t hat [ a

def endant ] i s not [ l i censed] , " Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, § 7 ( West

2014) ( emphasi s added) - - t o est abl i sh a mandatory pr esumpt i on.

Powel l , 926 F. Supp. 2d at 377. Looki ng t o surr oundi ng casel aw,

such as Cout ur e, t he di st r i ct cour t det er mi ned t hat sect i on 7' s

mandatory pr esumpt i on shi f t ed onl y t he bur den of pr oduct i on and not

t he ul t i mat e bur den of per suasi on. I d. Mor eover , t he di st r i ct

cour t det er mi ned that " t he bur den of pr oduct i on [ coul d] be met bya mi ni mal showi ng - - t hat i s, t he mer e pr oduct i on of a l i cense. "

I d. Consequent l y, t he cour t anal yzed t he pr esumpt i on as i f i t was

per mi ssi ve, r at her t han mandat or y. I d. I agr ee wi t h t hi s much of

t he di str i ct cour t ' s anal ysi s .

At t hi s poi nt , I par t ways wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t .

Agai n, t he Al l en Cour t hel d t hat per mi ssi ve pr esumpt i ons "af f ect s

t he appl i cat i on of t he ' beyond a r easonabl e doubt ' st andar d" - - and

t hus r ai se a const i t ut i onal concer n - - "onl y i f , under t he f act s of

t he case, t her e i s no r at i onal way t he t r i er coul d make t he

-61-



one' s f ai l ur e t o pr esent a def ense was suf f i ci ent t o i mpl y pr oof of

gui l t .

Under t he Ant i t er r or i sm and Ef f ect i ve Deat h Penal t y Act

of 1996 ( "AEDPA") , a st at e r ul i ng cannot cont r adi ct cl ear l y

est abl i shed f eder al l aw. 28 U. S. C. § 2254 ( d) ( 1) . I f f eder al l aw

i s uncl ear , or i f t he st at e r ul i ng i s consi st ent wi t h f eder al l aw,

t hen t he st at e wi ns and habeas i s not gr ant ed. I d. As I amunabl e

t o per cei ve a r eadi ng of t he SJ C' s di sposi t i on of Powel l ' s due

pr ocess cl ai mt hat does not cont r adi ct cl ear l y est abl i shed f eder al

l aw as det ermi ned by t he Supr eme Cour t , I concl ude t hat t he AEDPA

st andar d has been met . To t he ext ent t hat t he SJ C i n Powel l ,

t hr ough r ef er ence t o J ones, el evat ed t he "compar at i ve conveni ence"

t est over t he " r at i onal connect i on" t est , t he adj udi cat i on was

"cont r ar y t o" f eder al l aw. Fur t her , t o t he ext ent t hat t he SJ C,

agai n t hr ough r ef er ence t o J ones, f ound t he " r at i onal connect i on"

t est sat i sf i ed by the pr esumpt i on at i ssue, t he adj udi cat i on

i nvol ved an "unr easonabl e appl i cat i on" of f eder al l aw.

I r espectf ul l y di ssent .

powell v. tompkins, 1st cir. (2015)

Documents