Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
State of Oklahoma v. Jesse Seth Diaz
Date: 01-30-2025
Case Number: CF-2023-583.
Judge: David Wilkie
Court: The District Court in and for Kay County, Oklahoma
Plaintiff's Attorney: Kay County District Attorneya's Office
Defendant's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best Ponca City Criminal Defense Law Lawyer Directory
Description:
Ponca City, Oklahoma, criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with: felon in possession of a firearm (21 O.S.Supp.2022, § 1283.
¶7 Section 1283(A) prohibits a convicted felon from possessing "any pistol, imitation or homemade pistol, altered air or toy pistol, machine gun, sawed-off shotgun or sawed-off rifle, or any other firearm." Below, Appellee, relying predominately on Thompson v. State, 1971 OK CR 328, ¶¶ 13-14, 488 P.2d 944, 948, overruled on other grounds by Dolph v. State, 1974 OK CR 46, 520 P.2d 378, successfully argued that this Section did not prohibit him from carrying the BB gun because it was neither a "firearm" nor a "pistol" as those terms are defined by OUJI-CR-6-45.1 Although it once was, functionality is no longer a requirement. See Cornelius v. State, 2023 OK CR 14, ¶ 26, 534 P.3d 715, 723 ("this Court continues to hold that operability is not an element of felon in possession of a firearm after former conviction"); Sims v. State, 1988 OK CR 193, ¶ 8, 762 P.2d 270, 272, ("Whether or not the pistol is capable of firing is not an element that must be proven to sustain a conviction under Section 1283."). And when we held to the contrary in Thompson, we were applying a version of the statute passed in 1961 and one that required the firearm to be "dangerous or deadly."
¶8 Thompson has been abrogated by more recent versions of Section 1283 including the version passed in 2022 and at issue here. Nonetheless, we take this opportunity to explicitly overrule Thompson.
¶9 In Sims, we interpreted the legislative intent of Section 1283 as "to keep guns, real or imitation, out of the possession or control of felons." 1988 OK CR 193, ¶ 8, 762 P.2d at 272. Based on the record provided, we find sufficient evidence existed to bind Appellee over for possession of an "imitation pistol." The order sustaining the demurrer is REVERSED and this matter is REMANDED to the District Court for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
¶7 Section 1283(A) prohibits a convicted felon from possessing "any pistol, imitation or homemade pistol, altered air or toy pistol, machine gun, sawed-off shotgun or sawed-off rifle, or any other firearm." Below, Appellee, relying predominately on Thompson v. State, 1971 OK CR 328, ¶¶ 13-14, 488 P.2d 944, 948, overruled on other grounds by Dolph v. State, 1974 OK CR 46, 520 P.2d 378, successfully argued that this Section did not prohibit him from carrying the BB gun because it was neither a "firearm" nor a "pistol" as those terms are defined by OUJI-CR-6-45.1 Although it once was, functionality is no longer a requirement. See Cornelius v. State, 2023 OK CR 14, ¶ 26, 534 P.3d 715, 723 ("this Court continues to hold that operability is not an element of felon in possession of a firearm after former conviction"); Sims v. State, 1988 OK CR 193, ¶ 8, 762 P.2d 270, 272, ("Whether or not the pistol is capable of firing is not an element that must be proven to sustain a conviction under Section 1283."). And when we held to the contrary in Thompson, we were applying a version of the statute passed in 1961 and one that required the firearm to be "dangerous or deadly."
¶8 Thompson has been abrogated by more recent versions of Section 1283 including the version passed in 2022 and at issue here. Nonetheless, we take this opportunity to explicitly overrule Thompson.
¶9 In Sims, we interpreted the legislative intent of Section 1283 as "to keep guns, real or imitation, out of the possession or control of felons." 1988 OK CR 193, ¶ 8, 762 P.2d at 272. Based on the record provided, we find sufficient evidence existed to bind Appellee over for possession of an "imitation pistol." The order sustaining the demurrer is REVERSED and this matter is REMANDED to the District Court for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Outcome:
Demurrer sustained.
Reversed.
Reversed.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of State of Oklahoma v. Jesse Seth Diaz?
The outcome was: Demurrer sustained. Reversed.
Which court heard State of Oklahoma v. Jesse Seth Diaz?
This case was heard in The District Court in and for Kay County, Oklahoma, OK. The presiding judge was David Wilkie.
Who were the attorneys in State of Oklahoma v. Jesse Seth Diaz?
Plaintiff's attorney: Kay County District Attorneya's Office. Defendant's attorney: Click Here For The Best Ponca City Criminal Defense Law Lawyer Directory.
When was State of Oklahoma v. Jesse Seth Diaz decided?
This case was decided on January 30, 2025.