Source: cases/18usc924/us-556-568-dean-v-us.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/us/volume_556/0568_01/index.html
It is whether something happened— not how or why it happened — that matters.
The 10-year mandatory minimum applies if a gun is discharged in the course of a violent or drug trafficking crime, whether on purpose or by accident.
The parties disagree over whether § 924(c)(l)(A)(iii) contains a requirement that the defendant intend to discharge the firearm. We hold that it does not.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is affirmed.
Absent a clear indication that Congress intended to create a strict-liability enhancement, courts should presume that a provision that mandates enhanced criminal penalties requires proof of intent.
Accordingly, I would hold that the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that petitioner could be sentenced under §924(c)(l)(A)(iii) absent evidence that he intended to discharge his gun.
The defendant must have intended to brandish the firearm, because the brandishing must have been done for a specific purpose.
The most natural reading of the statute, however, is that “in relation to” modifies only the nearby verbs “uses” and “carries.”
There is no basis for reading “in relation to” to extend all the way down to modify “is discharged.”
casedsl 1
case /us/556/0568-01
name Dean v. United States
cite 556 U.S. 568 (2009)
court Supreme Court of the United States
date 2009-04-29
url catalog/cases/us/volume_556/0568_01/index.html
source ir/caselaw/us_556.jsonl sha1=fd048672cd60d735bf5b0449ff80252929f7ac7e chars=31989
law 18usc924 (c)(1)(A)(iii)
role applied
posture criminal; jury conviction for bank-robbery conspiracy and the 924(c) count, 10-year mandatory minimum imposed by the sentencing judge because the gun discharged; CA11 affirmed; certiorari on whether the discharge enhancement requires intent to discharge; affirmed
result claimant-won
element penalty.discharge : satisfied [law]
variant discharge/accidental-during-robbery
fact @999..1065 [supports] | He grabbed bills with his left hand, holding the gun in his right.
fact @1138..1250 [supports] | As he was collecting the money, the gun discharged, leaving a bullet hole in the partition between two stations.
fact @1297..1374 [cuts-against] | Witnesses later testified that he seemed surprised that the gun had gone off.
fact @1375..1391 [cuts-against] | No one was hurt.
rule @4987..5063 | It is whether something happened— not how or why it happened — that matters.
rule @15197..15346 | The 10-year mandatory minimum applies if a gun is discharged in the course of a violent or drug trafficking crime, whether on purpose or by accident.
held @3778..3932 | The parties disagree over whether § 924(c)(l)(A)(iii) contains a requirement that the defendant intend to discharge the firearm. We hold that it does not.
held @15347..15421 | The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is affirmed.
gloss That the gun went off, apparently by accident, was undisputed; the only question was legal (no mens rea for the discharge tier), and the enhanced sentence was affirmed. The cuts-against facts matter only on the rejected intent reading (surprise) and to the dissent (no harm); the Court holds both irrelevant. The enhancement was applied by the sentencing judge as a sentencing factor, as then permitted.
element penalty.discharge : not-satisfied [law]
scope dissent
opinion Stevens, J., dissenting
variant discharge/accidental-during-robbery
rule @22499..22696 | Absent a clear indication that Congress intended to create a strict-liability enhancement, courts should presume that a provision that mandates enhanced criminal penalties requires proof of intent.
held @16351..16537 | Accordingly, I would hold that the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that petitioner could be sentenced under §924(c)(l)(A)(iii) absent evidence that he intended to discharge his gun.
gloss Stevens: escalating tiers track culpability and the mens rea presumption applies to mandatory minimums. A separate Breyer dissent (rule of lenity) reaches the same result and is not quoted.
element penalty.brandish : not-reached
role rule-announced
rule @5559..5684 | The defendant must have intended to brandish the firearm, because the brandishing must have been done for a specific purpose.
gloss Structural contrast only: brandishing carries an intent requirement through the (c)(4) definition ("in order to intimidate"); discharge has none. Whether Dean brandished was not in issue.
element during-relation : not-reached
role rule-announced
rule @7148..7275 | The most natural reading of the statute, however, is that “in relation to” modifies only the nearby verbs “uses” and “carries.”
rule @7528..7628 | There is no basis for reading “in relation to” to extend all the way down to modify “is discharged.”
gloss Scope of the nexus phrases: "in relation to" attaches to use/carry and "in furtherance of" to possess; neither reaches the sentencing tiers. The element itself was not contested.
element use : not-reached
scope lower-court
variant active/weapon
fact @813..904 [supports] | In this case, a masked man entered a bank, waved a gun, and yelled at everyone to get down.
fact @1813..1954 [supports] | At trial, Dean admitted that he had committed the robbery, id., at 76-81, and a jury found him guilty on both the robbery and firearm counts.
gloss The base offense, found by the jury and not reviewed. The count charged using, carrying, possessing and discharging in one breath and the jury returned a general guilty verdict on the firearm count; the opinion does not say which conduct mode the jury found, so no `use` finding is recorded (not-reached). The facts are parked under `use` as the annotator's placement because the gun was waved at the bank's occupants.
misfit Penalty tiers are not offense elements in the opinion's own terms ("sentencing factors" found by the judge); a satisfied `penalty.discharge` instance sits beside element instances with nothing marking the different fact-finder and burden. No temporal flag (known misfit 10): Alleyne (2013) later required the brandish/discharge facts to go to the jury, and the charged predicate (Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy) would no longer qualify after Davis (2019); neither is expressible, and no `predicate.violence` block is written because the opinion never examines the predicate.
misfit The holding is a "no mens rea required" ruling about the element; it is encoded only in rule lines and the variant species (known misfit 2). Polarity (known misfit 6): "seemed surprised" and "No one was hurt" are tagged cuts-against although the Court holds them legally irrelevant rather than weighing them.
misfit One basis per block (known misfit 5): legal ruling on undisputed facts plus a sentencing judge's finding; [law] chosen.
misfit The indictment charged Dean and a co-defendant with aiding and abetting each other (18 U.S.C. 2); the opinion does not discuss accomplice liability, so no `accomplice` block. The conduct-mode block is a lower-court verdict over an undifferentiated use/carry/possess charge, which cannot be represented without picking one id; it is therefore `not-reached` under `use`, and the jury's count-level guilty verdict has no holding value.