Supreme Court of the United States · 1993-06-01
author: unavailable · not independently reviewed
Case and law context
Interpretation-only case: no authored CASE context or instance blocks recorded in this snapshot.
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
The phrase “in relation to” thus, at a minimum, clarifies that the firearm must have some purpose or effect with respect to the drug trafficking crime; its presence or involvement cannot be the result of accident or coincidence.
Smith v. United States — 508 U.S. 223 · Supreme Court of the United States · 1993 (18usc924: author: unavailable · not independently reviewed)
The phrase “in relation to” thus, at a minimum, clarifies that the firearm must have some purpose or effect with respect to the drug trafficking crime; its presence or involvement cannot be the result of accident or coincidence.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_508.jsonl#/us/508/0223-01; Unicode character offsets [25717:25945] (end exclusive); SHA-256 fe1888ef3c4d62490662c69eac034f4ad490a5a5e0b5baf711ff62e9ca25392f.Both temporal coincidence and a facilitating relationship are required for use/carry. Smith explains at least facilitation or potential facilitation; coincidence alone is insufficient. Apply the corresponding nexus to ammunition under (c)(5).