Does Utah recognize an innocent possession defense for felon-in-possession charges? State v. Sanders Explained

In State v. Sanders, the Utah Supreme Court definitively resolved whether Utah recognizes an innocent possession defense for individuals charged with possession of a firearm by a restricted person under Utah Code section 76-10-503.

Background and Facts

Sanders, a convicted felon, was found by police officers carrying a rifle in his backyard after they responded to a domestic disturbance call. Sanders claimed he was innocently moving his girlfriend’s son’s hunting rifle back into the house after discovering it had been left outside near an elementary school. At trial, Sanders requested a jury instruction stating that a restricted person is not guilty if the firearm was “obtained innocently and held with no illicit or illegal purpose” and the possession was “transitory.” The district court denied the instruction, and Sanders was convicted.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Utah Code section 76-10-503, which prohibits restricted persons from “intentionally or knowingly” possessing firearms, contains an implicit innocent possession defense. Sanders argued this defense was consistent with the statute, established precedent, and necessary to avoid criminalizing innocent behavior.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court applied statutory interpretation principles, examining the plain language of section 76-10-503. The court noted that the Utah Criminal Code defines “possess” as having “physical possession of or to exercise dominion or control over tangible property,” and the Legislature specifically carved out limited exceptions in section 76-10-503(7) allowing restricted persons to transfer firearms within ten days of becoming restricted. The court emphasized that “it is for the legislature to define affirmative defenses to crimes under the Utah Code.”

The court distinguished State v. Miller, which recognized an innocent possession defense for controlled substances, noting that unlike the Controlled Substances Act, section 76-10-503 contains specific legislative guidance on when restricted persons may handle firearms. To the extent that State v. Davis could be read to support an innocent possession defense, the court overruled that precedent under the Eldridge v. Johndrow framework.

Practice Implications

This decision provides crucial clarity for practitioners handling felon-in-possession cases. Defense attorneys cannot rely on innocent possession theories and must focus on challenging the mens rea elements or arguing that the defendant’s conduct falls within the statute’s narrow exceptions. The court’s bright-line rule eliminates ambiguity about temporary possession scenarios, though it suggested the absurd results doctrine might apply in extreme hypothetical situations.