State v. Rhodes

Summary

This separate opinion would reverse the defendant's firearm-possession conviction because the evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that she intended and was practically able to exercise dominion or control over the firearm carried by her passenger. It would affirm the conviction for having a weapon in a motor vehicle because that offense requires proof that the defendant operated the vehicle, knew a weapon was inside, and lacked the required permit or registration, not proof of possession. The opinion also concludes that the defendant's unpreserved statutory-construction challenge was not reviewable under the available exceptions. Justice Ecker, joined by Justices Palmer and McDonald, concurs in part and dissents in part from the majority's disposition.