2006-324, STATE OF NH v. SCOTT BUCHANAN

The defendant, Scott Buchanan, appeals the order of the

for the defendant. Law Offices of Penny S. Dean, of Concord (Penny S. Dean on the brief),

brief), for the State. to press. Errors may be reported by E-mail at the following address: Kelly A. Ayotte, attorney general (Elizabeth J. Baker, attorney, on the

editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes No. 2006-324 Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any Concord District Court Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New ___________________________

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

page is: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme. a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home reporter@courts.state.nh.us. Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00

well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule p. 2 22 as intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:

authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal

defective.” The term “adjudicated as a mental defective” is defined as:

possess them because of age, criminal background, or incompetency.” curb crime by keeping firearms out of the hands of those not legally entitled to firearm. “The principal purpose of the federal gun control legislation . . . was to A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful

part of the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, from owning firearms. possession of a firearm by anyone who “has been adjudicated as a mental whatever guidance, if any, state law may offer. Subsection 9 p. 2 22(g)(4) -- the provision at issue in this case -- prohibits

U.S. at 116. Congress was “reaching far and was doing so intentionally.” Dickerson, 460 Huddleston, 415 U.S. at 8 p. 2 24 (quotation omitted). In enacting these categories,

Subsection 9 p. 2 22(g) lists nine categories of people who may not possess a

159 F.3d 656, 658 (1 Cir. 1998). st mental defective” and is, therefore, prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 9 p. 2 22(g)(4) (2000), a United States v. Chamberlain, defendant was found incompetent to stand trial, he has been “adjudicated as a (1974), and interpret it in accordance with federal policy taking into account mental defective under federal law. The State counters that because the its language and structure, Huddleston v. United States, 415 U.S. 814, 819 Inc., 460 U.S. 103, 111-12 (1983). In construing the statute, we first examine § 922(g)(4) is a question of federal law. Cf. Dickerson v. New Banner Institute, The meaning of the phrase “adjudicated as a mental defective” under 18 U.S.C. novo. In the Matter of Liquidation of Home Ins. Co., 154 N.H. 472, 479 (2006). The interpretation of a statute is a question of law, which we review de

C.F.R. § 478.3 p. 2 2(a) (2006). the return of the firearms and this appeal followed. and, therefore, was prohibited from possessing firearms. The trial court denied See 27

equating a finding of incompetence to stand trial with an adjudication as a The defendant argues that the trial court erred as a matter of law in

I. “Mental Defective” under Federal Firearms Law

the defendant was a “mental defective” as a result of the incompetency finding pursuant to his bail order. The State argued that under federal firearms law, order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. p. 3 stand trial with “adjudicated as a mental defective,” we vacate the trial court’s

Therefore, because the trial court impermissibly equated incompetency to

requirements of the federal definition of “adjudicated as a mental defective.”

DUGGAN, GALWAY and HICKS, JJ., concurred.

constitute contraband should be addressed on remand. dangerousness or the ability to contract or manage one’s own affairs -- not resolve this issue, as the matter of whether the defendant’s firearms Under the terms of this statute, competency is not directly related to contends the firearms should be forfeited under RSA 595-A:6 (2001). We do reasonable degree of rational understanding.” RSA 135:17, II(b), III (2005). 91 (2006) (quotation, brackets and ellipsis omitted). Therefore, the State ability to consult with and assist his or her lawyer on the case with a that are unlawful to possess” under federal law. State v. Cohen, 154 N.H. 89, argues that the defendant’s firearms are contraband because they are “goods statutorily barred from possessing a handgun under federal law. The State his firearms because there was no evidence before the court that he was The defendant also argues that the trial court erred in refusing to return

II. Disposition of Property Under RSA 595-A:6

capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.” 27 C.F.R. § 478.11(a). or disease” he is “a danger to himself or others” or he “lacks the mental of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition understanding of the proceedings against him or her, and sufficient present the definition of “adjudicated as a mental defective” either because “as a result that focuses upon “[w]hether the defendant has a rational and factual On remand, the trial court shall determine whether the defendant meets determination is a limited inquiry to determine “competen[ce] to stand trial” stand trial, we hold that it erred. In a criminal case, a competency

“adjudicated as a mental defective” means the same thing as incompetent to Because it appears that the trial court ruled as a matter of law that

27 C.F.R. § 478.11(a) (2006).

affairs. (2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own (1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or