Bell v. United States
349 U.S. 81 (1955)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a federal criminal statute does not clearly define the unit of prosecution, ambiguity should be resolved in favor of lenity, meaning a single transaction should be treated as a single offense rather than multiple offenses.
Facts:
- Petitioner, Bell, knowingly transported two women in interstate commerce.
- The transportation of both women occurred on the same trip.
- Bell used the same vehicle to transport both women.
- The purpose of the transportation was for prostitution or another immoral purpose.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioner was charged in a U.S. District Court with two counts of violating the Mann Act, one for each woman transported.
- Petitioner pleaded guilty to both counts.
- The District Court imposed consecutive sentences for each count.
- Petitioner filed a motion to correct the sentence, arguing he committed only a single offense.
- The District Court denied the motion.
- Petitioner (appellant) appealed the denial to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's ruling, holding that two separate offenses were committed.
- 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 the simultaneous transportation of more than one woman across state lines in a single vehicle for an immoral purpose constitute a single offense or multiple offenses under the Mann Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Frankfurter
No, this constitutes a single offense. The Mann Act is ambiguous as to whether the unit of prosecution is the act of transportation or the number of women transported. When Congress does not clearly and unambiguously fix the punishment for a federal offense, any doubt will be resolved against turning a single transaction into multiple offenses. This principle, known as the rule of lenity, is a presupposition of our law that resolves doubts in the enforcement of a penal code against the imposition of a harsher punishment. Since Congress did not explicitly state that each woman transported constitutes a separate offense, the single act of transportation is the punishable unit.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Minton
Yes, this constitutes multiple offenses. The statute is not ambiguous because its clear purpose is to protect individual women from exploitation and debauchery. Therefore, the transportation of each individual woman should be punished as a separate offense. The focus of the Act is on the victim, not the means of transportation, and the majority's construction does violence to the plain wording and intent of Congress by making it no more serious to transport women 'by the bus load' than to transport one.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the application of the rule of lenity as a fundamental principle of statutory interpretation in federal criminal law. It establishes that if Congress wishes to impose cumulative punishments for a single criminal transaction involving multiple victims or items, it must do so with clear and explicit language. The ruling places the burden on the legislature to be precise when defining criminal offenses and their corresponding punishments. Consequently, this precedent guides lower courts to narrowly construe ambiguous penal statutes in favor of the accused, preventing prosecutorial overreach and the judicial creation of multiple offenses from a single act.
