State v. Schmidt
Court of Appeals of Washington
1Opinion of the CourtMorgan, J.
— Zachary Schmidt appeals his conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm. He claims he was convicted in violation of the ex post facto clause. We affirm. In 1988, Schmidt was convicted of second degree assault. *299The law in effect at that time did not bar one convicted of second degree assault from possessing a rifle.1
In 1994, the legislature amended RCW 9.41.040 to make it a felony for a person previously convicted of second degree assault to possess a rifle.2 From here on, we refer to this as the 1994 amendment.
In 1997, Schmidt was arrested while possessing a rifle. A day or two later,…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited40 opinions
- Weaver v. GrahamSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Kansas v. HendricksSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Calder v. BullSupreme Court of the United States · 1798
- Collins v. YoungbloodSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Dobbert v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- State v. SchmidtWashington Supreme Court · 2001
- State v. PetersNebraska Supreme Court · 2001
- State v. HendricksCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2000
- State v. HendricksCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2000
- In re the Estate of HavilandWashington Supreme Court · 2013
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.