Ball v. United States

Supreme Court of United States
470 U.S. 856 (1985)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A convicted felon cannot be convicted and punished for both receiving a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(h)(1) and possessing that same firearm under 18 U.S.C. App. § 1202(a)(1) when the charges arise from a single course of conduct, as Congress did not intend to authorize two punishments for the same offense.

Facts:

Truman Ball was a previously convicted felon.
Hubert Romans discovered his .32-caliber revolver was missing from his car after Ball and others had been riding with him.
Romans reported the missing firearm to the Sheriff's Department.
A neighbor notified the Sheriff that Ball had threatened him with a pistol matching the description of Romans' revolver.
Police later located Ball at another neighbor's home, where he had unsuccessfully tried to sell the revolver.
When police attempted to arrest him, Ball fled but was quickly apprehended with Romans' revolver in his possession.

Procedural Posture:

Truman Ball was indicted in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia for violating both 18 U.S.C. § 922(h)(1) (receipt of a firearm by a felon) and 18 U.S.C. App. § 1202(a)(1) (possession of a firearm by a felon).
A jury convicted Ball on both counts.
The district court sentenced Ball to consecutive prison terms: three years on the receipt count and a suspended two-year sentence on the possession count.
Ball appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, challenging the consecutive sentences.
The Court of Appeals, following its own precedent and a government concession, held that the penalties could not be 'pyramided' and remanded for the sentences to be served concurrently rather than consecutively.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the circuit courts on this issue.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does federal law permit a convicted felon to be convicted and sentenced under both 18 U.S.C. § 922(h)(1) for receiving a firearm and 18 U.S.C. App. § 1202(a)(1) for possessing the same firearm when both charges stem from a single act?

Opinions:

Majority - Chief Justice Burger

No, federal law does not permit a convicted felon to be convicted and sentenced under both statutes for a single act. Applying the Blockburger test to ascertain congressional intent, the Court determined that the two statutes do not proscribe separate offenses in this context. Proof of illegal receipt of a firearm necessarily includes proof of illegal possession of that weapon, meaning one offense is subsumed by the other. The legislative history of the overlapping statutes indicates Congress intended to keep firearms from felons, not to create duplicative punishments for a single criminal act. Because a second conviction carries adverse collateral consequences (e.g., parole eligibility, future sentencing enhancements) beyond the sentence itself, it constitutes an impermissible additional punishment. Therefore, if a jury returns guilty verdicts on both counts, the district judge must enter a judgment of conviction on only one of the offenses and vacate the other.

Concurring - Justice Stevens

Yes, I agree that a defendant's conduct may support a conviction under either statute, but not both. While I concur in the judgment, I write separately to object to the majority's unnecessary statement that 'there is no bar to the Government's proceeding with prosecution simultaneously under the two statutes.' Allowing prosecutors to bring multiple charges for the same act tilts the scales of justice against the defendant by increasing the risk of a conviction, potentially through a compromise verdict from a doubtful jury. This prosecutorial tactic gives the government an unfair advantage and should not be encouraged by the Court.

Analysis:

This decision resolves a circuit split regarding the application of two overlapping federal firearms statutes, clarifying that a single criminal act cannot support convictions under both § 922(h) and § 1202(a). The ruling's primary significance lies in its remedy: it requires vacating one of the convictions, not merely making sentences concurrent, to avoid the adverse collateral consequences that constitute a separate, impermissible punishment. This holding reinforces the principle against duplicative punishments derived from legislative intent and protects defendants from having their criminal records inflated by multiple convictions for what is essentially one transaction. The case solidifies the application of the Blockburger test as a tool for statutory interpretation to prevent the government from 'piling on' charges.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Ball v. United States (1985)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature