Bailey v. United States

516 U.S. 137 (1995) Supreme Court of the United States 1995-12-06

criminal; two jury convictions (Bailey; Robinson) under the pre-1998 "uses or carries" text, affirmed by the en banc D.C. Circuit on a proximity-and-accessibility test; certiorari on the meaning of "use"; sufficiency of the evidence of "use" decided for both defendants, "carry" remanded (result: remanded)

Facts

  1. 3 Active employment of a firearm not no-evidence
    A search of the passenger compartment revealed oné round of ammunition and 27 plastic bags containing a total of 30 grams of cocaine.
  2. 3 Active employment of a firearm not no-evidence
    After arresting Bailey, the officers searched the trunk of his car where they found, among a number of items, a large amount of cash and a bag containing a loaded 9-mm. pistol.
  3. 3 Active employment of a firearm not no-evidence
    A prosecution expert testified at trial that drug dealers frequently carry a firearm to protect their drugs and money as well as themselves.
  4. 3 Active employment of a firearm not no-evidence
    The officer observed Robinson retrieve the drugs from the bedroom of her one-bedroom apartment.
  5. 3 Active employment of a firearm not no-evidence
    Inside a locked trunk in the bedroom closet, the police found, among other things, an unloaded, holstered .22-caliber Derringer, papers and a tax return belonging to Robinson, 10.88 grams of crack cocaine, and a marked $20 bill from the first controlled buy.
  6. 3 Active employment of a firearm not no-evidence
    We agree with petitioners, and hold that § 924(c)(1) requires evidence sufficient to show an active employment of the firearm by the defendant, a use that makes the firearm an operative factor in relation to the predicate offense.
  7. 3 Active employment of a firearm not no-evidence
    A defendant cannot be charged under § 924(c)(1) merely for storing a weapon near drugs or drug proceeds.
  8. 3 Active employment of a firearm not no-evidence
    If the gun is not disclosed or mentioned by the offender, it is not actively employed, and it is not “used.”
  9. 3 Active employment of a firearm not no-evidence
    Placement for later active use does not constitute “use.”
  10. 3 Active employment of a firearm not no-evidence
    Having determined that “use” denotes active employment, we must conclude that the evidence was insufficient to support either Bailey’s or Robinson’s conviction for “use” under § 924(c)(1).
  11. 3 Active employment of a firearm not no-evidence
    The police then found a firearm inside a bag in the locked car trunk.
  12. 3 Active employment of a firearm not no-evidence
    There was no evidence that Bailey actively employed the firearm in any way.
  13. 3 Active employment of a firearm not no-evidence
    In Robinson’s case, the unloaded, holstered firearm that provided the basis for her § 924(c)(1) conviction was found locked in a footlocker in a bedroom closet.
  14. 3 Active employment of a firearm not no-evidence
    No evidence showed that Robinson had actively employed the firearm.
  15. 3 Active employment of a firearm not no-evidence
    We reverse both judgments.