## Facts

- Todd Lin Chow, a non-dealer and District of Columbia police officer, lent his handgun to his friend, Man Nguyen, after Nguyen’s own handgun was confiscated during a criminal investigation.
- Nguyen, an adult otherwise permitted to possess a handgun, later was stopped by police; officers discovered Chow’s handgun in Nguyen’s possession.
- Maryland charged Chow in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County with illegally transferring a regulated firearm under former Md. Code art. 27, § 442.
- After a bench trial, the circuit court found Chow guilty and imposed a suspended 60-day sentence and a $200 fine.
- The intermediate appellate court affirmed, and Chow sought further review.

## Issues

1. Whether a temporary, gratuitous loan of a regulated handgun between adults otherwise eligible to possess handguns constitutes an illegal “transfer” under former Md. Code art. 27, § 442(d).
2. What mental state is required to impose penalties for participation in an illegal transfer under former Md. Code art. 27, § 449(f), which punished a person who “knowingly” participates in an illegal transfer.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed the intermediate appellate court and vacated Chow’s conviction.
- The court held that “transfer” in § 442(d), read in statutory context, refers to a gratuitous permanent exchange of title or possession and does not include temporary loans.
- The court held that “knowingly” in § 449(f) required specific intent: the State had to prove the defendant knew the transaction was illegal.
- Because the loan was not a prohibited “transfer” and the State did not prove Chow knew his conduct was unlawful, the conviction could not stand.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory terms in a criminal statute must be construed in context with the broader statutory scheme rather than in isolation.
- Under former Md. Code art. 27, § 442(d), “transfer” of a regulated firearm meant a gratuitous permanent exchange of title or possession, not a temporary, gratuitous loan between otherwise eligible adults.
- Ambiguity in a criminal statute is resolved in the defendant’s favor under strict construction principles, including the rule of lenity, especially when a broader reading would criminalize common lawful conduct without clear legislative direction.
- Under former Md. Code art. 27, § 449(f), “knowingly” imposed a specific-intent requirement: the State must prove the defendant knew the sale, rental, transfer, purchase, possession, or receipt was illegal, not merely that the defendant intentionally participated in the physical act.

## Conclusion

The court reversed Chow’s conviction, holding that a temporary, gratuitous handgun loan between otherwise eligible adults was not an illegal “transfer” under § 442(d) and that § 449(f) required proof the defendant knew the transaction was unlawful.


Chow v. State, 393 Md. 431, 903 A.2d 388 (Md. 2006)