News-Record.com

A Guilford County judge was wrong to order firearms returned to the defendant in a domestic violence case, the N.C. Court of Appeals unanimously ruled today.

The opinion, written by Judge Donna Stroud and joined by Judges Linda McGee and Doug McCullough, couldn't be more clear:

"On appeal, the Sheriff argues that the trial court erred by (1) finding that the Sheriff improperly seized defendant's firearms, (2) failing to conduct an inquiry as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50B-3.1(f) before ordering return of the firearms, and (3) ordering the return of the firearms to a person who was prohibited by the law from possessing them. We agree."

The appeals court reversed a terrible ruling by Guilford County District Court Judge Linda Falls.

Fortunately, Falls' judgment was never implemented. Guilford County's Sheriff's Office attorney Matt Mason used a fairly obscure state law to place the firearms into the custody of the clerk of court pending appeal.

The guns never were returned. Their owner, defendent Herbert F. Gainey, died earlier this year.

The court record says his wife, Thelma Gainey, complained he physically and emotionally abused her during their 48 years of marriage, and had threatened her with a gun. On Dec. 4, 2006, she sought a domestic violence protective order against him. The DVPO was issued by Guilford County District Court Judge Lawrence McSwain and served by Sheriff's Deputy B.K. Henderson, who took seven firearms from Gainey.

In April 2007, Gainey filed a motion for return of his weapons. The motion was heard by Judge Falls on Aug. 29, and in a written order two days later she granted his motion, directing the Sheriff's Office to return his guns.

How in the world could she do that? Sheriff's counsel offered evidence that Gainey had been committed to a mental institution in 2004 and thus was prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms.

"The trial court's order contains only one substantive finding," the appeals court noted:

"The Ex Parte Domestic Violence Order of Protection signed by the Honorable Lawrence C. McSwain and entered on 12-4-06 did not order defendant to surrender to the Sheriff firearms or other items pursuant to Paragraph 13, page5 at said Order. Defendant's property was seized without an order of the court and such seizure was improper."

So, because Judge McSwain did not specifically order Gainey to surrender his firearms to the sheriff, Falls reasoned, the sheriff was not authorized to take them.

Except, as the court said, Gainey wasn't supposed to have them in the first place.

Furthermore, Falls didn't even conduct a proper inquiry, the appeals court ruled.

"There was highly persuasive evidence in the record that defendant had been committed to a mental institution in 2004, which under federal law would have precluded defendant from receiving a firearm. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) (2006). Furthermore, there was no evidence in the record to indicate that the seizure of defendant's firearms by the Guilford County Sheriff's Department was illegal. Because the trial court did not make the findings required by the statute, and because the findings that it did make were not raised in the motion and were not supported by any relevant evidence, we reverse and remand in order for the trial court to conduct a proper inquiry as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50B-3.1."

I spoke briefly with Judge Falls this morning, but she did not have time then to comment and promised to call back. I'll update.

But the real story here is the good work by the Sheriff's Office and its attorney, Matt Mason, to make sure -- despite Falls' order -- that the firearms never were returned to Herbert Gainey.

Footnote: Judge Falls was defeated in last May's primary in her bid for re-election and will leave the bench at the end of the year.

However, DA Doug Henderson has hired her to work as an assistant district attorney after she leaves the bench.

Update, 5:45 p.m. Tuesday: Judge Falls called back a few minutes ago. She had read the Court of Appeals ruling, remembered the case but had not reviewed the files and said she could not comment in detail.

She did say she tried to the best of her ability to apply the law properly in the case, which she called a case of first impression, meaning there was no guiding precedent.

She said it's the job of the Court of Appeals to offer "instruction" about the law, and that she appreciates its work. Sometimes, trial court judges are reversed by the appellate courts, she said.

Preview: We'll have an editorial about this case in our print and online editions Wednesday.

Addemdum: The Court of Appeals also weighed in on the work of other Guilford County judges today. For summaries, please continue reading below: