Catch-22...

[Oregon Street]

Man who killed intruder acted justifiably but will stand trial for illegally possessing the gun

By Stephen Hunt
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated:09/04/2007 03:02:50 PM MDT

Posted: 3:00 PM- Authorities have determined Danny Dutton acted in self-defense when he shot and killed a violent intruder at his Hurricane apartment earlier this year.

But in a case of legal Catch-22, Dutton has been ordered to stand trial for possessing the gun he used to kill Aaron Rondan Barbosa during a March 24 break-in.

Because of a 2004 felony conviction for cultivating marijuana, Dutton - a nephew of Hurricane Mayor Tom Hirschi - is prohibited from possessing firearms.

Following a June preliminary hearing, defense attorney Gary Pendleton filed a motion to dismiss the charge, citing case law recognizing that even a convicted felon may be entitled to use a gun in a life-or-death situation.

Deputy Washington County Attorney Eric Gentry countered that the motion was premature and that prosecutors are not required at this stage to negate Dutton's claim of self-defense.

Gentry also noted that during the preliminary hearing, the state had produced evidence that Dutton possessed the gun before, during and after the shooting, and was sufficiently aware of its location that he was able to immediately retrieve it.

Judge G. Rand Beacham last week agreed with prosecutors that the defense motion was premature, but he said the issue may be raised again prior to trial.
A scheduling hearing for Dutton is set for Sept. 13. If convicted of the second-degree felony weapons charge, he faces up to 15 years in prison.

Dutton is also charged with three class B misdemeanor counts of illegal possession of a controlled substance in connection with prescription medication allegedly found by police at his apartment following the shooting.
The shooting episode began when Barbosa and another man knocked on the door of the apartment Dutton, 22, shares with a male roommate.

When Dutton answered the door, Barbosa entered and began beating Dutton with a metal pipe, breaking Dutton's arm, according to court documents.
Dutton shouted at the intruders that they had "the wrong man," but Barbosa continued beating Dutton, who retreated to the kitchen, grabbed a .357-caliber handgun and shot Barbosa.
The other man, Juan Gonzalez, fled in a vehicle driven by Lucinda Ann Corral, but later confirmed Dutton's version of events.

Gonzalez also told police that Corral and Barbosa were "discussing payment after the job was done," as they were driving to Dutton's residence, according to court documents.
Corral, 30, has pleaded guilty to second-degree felony aggravated assault and faces up to 15 years in prison when she is sentenced Sept. 24 by Judge Beacham.
Gonzalez has not been charged, according to court records.
Also being prosecuted in connection with the shooting is Dutton's roommate, Shane Leland Norris, 27, and Bow-Dee Woodgeard, 20.

Norris is charged with third-degree felony drug possession, and class B misdemeanor counts of drug possession and possession of drug paraphernalia.
Woodgeard, 20, who has a prior felony conviction for manufacture of a controlled substance, is charged with second-degree felony possession of a dangerous weapon by a restricted person.
Meanwhile, Dutton has been charged in federal court with being a felon in possession of a handgun and ammunition on May 7 in Washington County, a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
[email protected]

Link to article: http://www.sltrib.com/ci_6799556

 

[FieroCDSP]

Hmm.....not sure where to fall on this one. Man uses gun to protect himself, but because of state or federal law, is not legally allowed to possess said weapon. Presumably he served his time for the drug conviction. I didn't notice if he was still on parole. Should a convicted drug offender who has served his time be given back his 2A rights? I think this is one of those areas that comes down to a few ideas.
1:Yes, he should have his rights (2A, voting, etc) restored because he served his time for the crime.
2:No, he committed a crime, knowing the risks, and the removal of his rights is a punishment he'll keep serving to remind him of his errors
3:Grey area; should he be charged with a crime that arose only because of use of force that was deemed not to be a crime?

 

[ramis]

Silly felon, you don't get to protect yourself.

 

[jpcampbell]

2:No, he committed a crime, knowing the risks, and the removal of his rights is a punishment he'll keep serving to remind him of his errors
For how long? what about his other rights should we take those also to better remind him of his mistakes. What if he had served in the military, or some other public service should that count in his favor.
I feel if you do your time that's it all your rights should be restored, unless you are convicted for a crime of violence.
This instance isn't the best example to use but I know several people that lost their rights for something they did 20 or 30 years ago and have been good citizens sense they got out of prison but because of The coward Clinton's decision to make the law retroactive they lost their rights.

 

[Omaney]

That's me and Yossarian scratching our heads. I have not given this too much thought but I am inclined to believe that once a sentence is carried out and the "debt" to society is satisfied, one should be restored his/her Constitutionals. Great on paper, but in practice I don't really know. This is something our society should resolve. Mr. Dutton does have the right to defend himself and should not be denied the tools to do so. How can we deny the right to defend ourselves in our own homes? We use the term "convicted felons" maybe a bit erroneously...perhaps "ex-cons" would be better. I am inclined to prosecute for the possession charge however. Good thing I am a working schmo instead of a legislator.

 

[RonE]

Don't you learn in the second or third grade that felons loose a lot of their rights? Seems like Dutton was convicted of a felony on drug charges and was living with a roommate in an apartment that had not only a gun that he was not supposed to have access to but also drugs (AGAIN!). Some guys never learn. I believe he was justified in shooting someone beating him but I gotta ask, how did he get involved with that? Oh yeah, DRUGS. No matter what happens to Dutton, he appears to be a looser, a looser on drugs, and a looser with a gun. I say: Why worry about what happens to a looser like him.He needs to realize that drugs will get you through times with no money better than money will get you through times with no drugs. (Unless something goes wrong and you get caught)