NHCaseLaw.com

The defendant, Timothy Geddes, has been indicted by the grand jury for violating RSA 159:10 (2002) by “knowingly [selling] a .22 caliber Smith and Wesson pistol to another person without being licensed to do so.” The defendant has moved to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that it fails to allege a crime because, in his view, only a person who is engaged in the business of selling pistols or revolvers is required to be licensed, and the indictment fails to allege that Geddes was engaged in said business. The State advances two arguments in opposition to the motion to dismiss. First, the State asserts that the licensing requirement is not limited to persons engaged in the business of selling pistols and revolvers. Second, the State argues that even if the statute is so limited, the indictment is facially valid and the burden is upon the defendant to prove that he was not engaged in the business of selling pistols and revolvers. I conclude that the defendant’s position is correct and therefore grant the motion to dismiss.