LEAVE YOUR POCKET KNIFE AT HOME IF YOU ARE ENTERING ONTO SCHOOL PROPERTY
The PA Superior Court recently decided the case of Commonwealth v. Goslin, No. 114 MDA 2015 (July 6, 2016), holding that, unless a person is on school property in a capacity that necessitates his possession of a knife, he is in violation of the statute prohibiting the possession of any knives on school property.
NOTE – AFTER EN BANC RE-ARGUMENT IN DECEMBER OF 2016, THE SUPERIOR DETERMINED THAT THE LANGUAGE OF THE APPLICABLE STATUTE WAS UNAMBIGUOUS AND THAT GOSLIN POSSESSED THE POCKETKNIFE ON SCHOOL PROPERTY FOR AN “OTHER LAWFUL PURPOSES.” THE CASE WAS THEREFORE REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL IN FEBRUARY OF 2017.
FACTS
In September of 2014, Goslin attended a meeting with his son’s elementary school principal for an “informal hearing” to discuss an incident involving his son’s possession of a knife on school property. The purpose of the hearing was to allow the family and student to discuss and answer any questions they may have had and for the school administration to ask any questions they may have regarding that incident.
During this informal hearing, Goslin said that he actually had a knife with him and asked if the school would arrest him for having it. (SPOILER ALERT: The answer was “yes.”) At that point, he was said to have forcefully placed a folding pocket knife on the table in front of people at the meeting. However, as the meeting – described as tense and strained by the principal – progressed, Goslin eventually placed the knife away after the assistant superintendent told him he was “in violation” for having the knife.
Goslin never pointed the knife at anyone and it was closed the entire time. He testified at his bench trial that he left work as a carpenter early to attend the meeting at the school and had the knife in his possession because he carries the knife with him to work and “every day everywhere.” He further testified, “I carry this knife with me every day because I use it. I use it at work, I use it to sharpen pencils, I use it to open tuna cans when my wife forgets to pack me a tuna can opener. I whittle sticks with my sons. … It occurred to me at the moment, oh, my goodness, they called the police on my nine-year-old son for having a whittling knife. I actually have a pocket knife on me now and am I a criminal as well? My intention was not to provoke people or to frighten people. My intention in that moment was to say, this is ridiculous. I mean, you send the state police to my home for my nine-year-old son having a whittling knife.”
ISSUE
Whether the Trial Court erred in defining and applying the phrase “lawful purpose” in the statute at issue, resulting in Goslin’s conviction?
HOLDING
The phrase “other lawful purpose” does not mean “any lawful purpose whatsoever” and, unless a person is on school property in a capacity that necessitates his possession of the knife, he is in violation of the statute.
REASONING
The Superior Court first set forth the statute at issues in Goslin’s case. It is a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable by up to five (5) years in jail if a person possesses a “weapon” in the buildings of, on the grounds of, or in any conveyance providing transportation to or from any elementary or secondary publicly-funded educational institution, any elementary or secondary private school licensed by the Department of Education or any elementary or secondary parochial school. A “weapon” is further defined by the statute as any knife, cutting instrument, cutting tool, nun-chuck stick, firearm, shotgun, rifle and any other tool, instrument or implement capable of inflicting serious bodily injury (NOTE – let us save for another day the argument that most anything is capable of inflicting serious bodily injury.) Lastly, it is a specific defense if the weapon is possessed and used in conjunction with a lawful supervised school activity or course or is possessed for other lawful purpose.
The Superior Court noted that previous analysis of the statute concluded that it enacted to safeguard public welfare by prohibiting weapons in or near schools and to protect students from the presence of weapons where they are learning.
Noting that the words “other lawful purpose” in the statute “are not explicit” the Superior Court thereafter set out to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the General Assembly in enacting the statute. After analyzing the mischief to be remedied, the object to be attained, and the consequences of a particular interpretation of the statute at issue, the Superior Court concluded that all incorporated the General Assembly’s paramount objective of improving school safety.
After applying the above analysis, the Superior Court agreed with the Commonwealth and the trial court, concluding that the phrase “other lawful purpose” does not mean “any lawful purpose whatsoever.” It noted that facts were not in dispute, i.e. – that Goslin did not appear at the school in his capacity as a carpenter, a contractor, an employee, or someone whose purpose in being at the school justified his possession of the knife. Rather, Goslin appeared in his capacity as a parent, with no purpose to possessing the knife on school property. Had he been at the school in a capacity which necessitated his possession of the knife, the Superior Court stated that he could have then availed himself of the “other lawful purpose” defense to possessing the knife on school property.
LINK TO CASE:
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/J-S22025-16o%20-%201027222228260190.pdf?cb=1
DISCLAIMER – The information contained in this article is for general guidance on the subject matter only. The application and impact of laws can vary widely based on the specific facts involved. Given the changing nature of laws, rules and regulations, and the inherent hazards of electronic communication, there may be delays, omissions or inaccuracies in information in this article. Case summaries are primarily excerpted directly from the decisions authored by the Courts. The decisions are cited and linked and the reader is encouraged to read the entire decision. Accordingly, the information in this article is provided with the understanding that the authors and publishers are not herein engaged in rendering legal or other professional advice and services. As such, it should NOT be used as a substitute for consultation with a McMahon & Winters Law Firm attorney. Before making any decision or taking any action, you should always consult with a McMahon & Winters Law Firm attorney.
