State v. Moore (Order on Motion Dissent)

Summary

The dissent would deny the defendant's request for bail relief and uphold the trial court's authority to require a 30 percent cash bond. It reasons that the statutory definition of a serious firearm offense is ambiguous, or alternatively produces absurd results if read narrowly, and that legislative history shows the legislature intended the provision to reach crimes committed through the discharge or use of a firearm, including conspiracy to commit murder. The dissenting judges therefore would treat the alleged firearm use in the arrest warrant affidavit as satisfying the relevant firearm element.