Supreme Court of the United States · 2009-04-29
Case and law context
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; claim: (c)(1)(A)(iii)
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /us/556/0568-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 | During and in relation to the predicate | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits claim: (c)(1)(A)(iii) 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. | Unspecified variant | The most natural reading of the statute, however, is that “in relation to” modifies only the nearby verbs “uses” and “carries.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_556.jsonl#/us/556/0568-01; Unicode character offsets [7148:7275] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8dcdaa28023fec01d4ddfa8fcffe04c5ce5ef1a2e833faa40777b9e858bdfb6b.There is no basis for reading “in relation to” to extend all the way down to modify “is discharged.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_556.jsonl#/us/556/0568-01; Unicode character offsets [7528:7628] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8dcdaa28023fec01d4ddfa8fcffe04c5ce5ef1a2e833faa40777b9e858bdfb6b. |
| /us/556/0568-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 | Seven-year brandishing minimum | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits claim: (c)(1)(A)(iii) 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. | Unspecified variant | The defendant must have intended to brandish the firearm, because the brandishing must have been done for a specific purpose.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_556.jsonl#/us/556/0568-01; Unicode character offsets [5559:5684] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8dcdaa28023fec01d4ddfa8fcffe04c5ce5ef1a2e833faa40777b9e858bdfb6b. |
| /us/556/0568-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 | Ten-year discharge minimum | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; claim: (c)(1)(A)(iii) 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. | discharge/accidental-during-robbery | He grabbed bills with his left hand, holding the gun in his right.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_556.jsonl#/us/556/0568-01; Unicode character offsets [999:1065] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8dcdaa28023fec01d4ddfa8fcffe04c5ce5ef1a2e833faa40777b9e858bdfb6b.As he was collecting the money, the gun discharged, leaving a bullet hole in the partition between two stations.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_556.jsonl#/us/556/0568-01; Unicode character offsets [1138:1250] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8dcdaa28023fec01d4ddfa8fcffe04c5ce5ef1a2e833faa40777b9e858bdfb6b.Witnesses later testified that he seemed surprised that the gun had gone off.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_556.jsonl#/us/556/0568-01; Unicode character offsets [1297:1374] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8dcdaa28023fec01d4ddfa8fcffe04c5ce5ef1a2e833faa40777b9e858bdfb6b.No one was hurt.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_556.jsonl#/us/556/0568-01; Unicode character offsets [1375:1391] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8dcdaa28023fec01d4ddfa8fcffe04c5ce5ef1a2e833faa40777b9e858bdfb6b.It is whether something happened— not how or why it happened — that matters.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_556.jsonl#/us/556/0568-01; Unicode character offsets [4987:5063] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8dcdaa28023fec01d4ddfa8fcffe04c5ce5ef1a2e833faa40777b9e858bdfb6b.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_556.jsonl#/us/556/0568-01; Unicode character offsets [15197:15346] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8dcdaa28023fec01d4ddfa8fcffe04c5ce5ef1a2e833faa40777b9e858bdfb6b.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_556.jsonl#/us/556/0568-01; Unicode character offsets [3778:3932] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8dcdaa28023fec01d4ddfa8fcffe04c5ce5ef1a2e833faa40777b9e858bdfb6b.The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is affirmed.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_556.jsonl#/us/556/0568-01; Unicode character offsets [15347:15421] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8dcdaa28023fec01d4ddfa8fcffe04c5ce5ef1a2e833faa40777b9e858bdfb6b. |
| /us/556/0568-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 | Ten-year discharge minimum | not Excluded from merits counts applied / dissent basis: law; claim: (c)(1)(A)(iii); opinion: Stevens, J., dissenting; subject: opinion=Stevens, J., dissenting 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. | discharge/accidental-during-robbery | 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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_556.jsonl#/us/556/0568-01; Unicode character offsets [22499:22696] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8dcdaa28023fec01d4ddfa8fcffe04c5ce5ef1a2e833faa40777b9e858bdfb6b.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_556.jsonl#/us/556/0568-01; Unicode character offsets [16351:16537] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8dcdaa28023fec01d4ddfa8fcffe04c5ce5ef1a2e833faa40777b9e858bdfb6b. |
| /us/556/0568-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 | Active employment of a firearm | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / lower-court claim: (c)(1)(A)(iii) 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. | active/weapon | In this case, a masked man entered a bank, waved a gun, and yelled at everyone to get down.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_556.jsonl#/us/556/0568-01; Unicode character offsets [813:904] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8dcdaa28023fec01d4ddfa8fcffe04c5ce5ef1a2e833faa40777b9e858bdfb6b.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_556.jsonl#/us/556/0568-01; Unicode character offsets [1813:1954] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8dcdaa28023fec01d4ddfa8fcffe04c5ce5ef1a2e833faa40777b9e858bdfb6b. |
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
It does not require that the discharge be done knowingly or intentionally, or otherwise contain words of limitation.
/us/556/0568-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2009
It does not require that the discharge be done knowingly or intentionally, or otherwise contain words of limitation.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_556.jsonl#/us/556/0568-01; Unicode character offsets [4170:4286] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8dcdaa28023fec01d4ddfa8fcffe04c5ce5ef1a2e833faa40777b9e858bdfb6b.Dean construes discharge mens rea; Alleyne separately controls jury proof of the discharge fact. Dean's pre-Alleyne procedural assumptions do not displace that later constitutional rule.