Carter v. United States
530 U.S. 255 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the elements test articulated in Schmuck v. United States, one offense is a lesser included offense of another only if the elements of the lesser offense are a subset of the elements of the charged offense, based on a textual comparison of the statutes.
Facts:
- On September 9, 1997, Floyd J. Carter, wearing a ski mask, entered the Collective Federal Savings Bank in Hamilton Township, New Jersey.
- Carter confronted a customer who was exiting and pushed her back inside the bank, causing her to scream.
- Carter then ran into the bank, leaped over the customer service counter, and went through a teller window.
- He proceeded to open several teller drawers and emptied the currency into a bag.
- Carter took almost $16,000 from the bank.
- After taking the money, Carter jumped back over the counter and fled the scene.
- Police apprehended Carter later that same day.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury indicted Floyd J. Carter for bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a).
- Before trial in the U.S. District Court, Carter moved for a jury instruction on bank larceny under § 2113(b) as a lesser included offense.
- The District Court denied Carter's motion.
- A jury convicted Carter of bank robbery under § 2113(a).
- Carter, as appellant, appealed the conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, with the United States as appellee.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment.
- The United States Supreme Court granted Carter's petition for a writ of certiorari to resolve a conflict among the circuit courts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is bank larceny, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b), a lesser included offense of bank robbery, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a)?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Thomas
No. Bank larceny under § 2113(b) is not a lesser included offense of bank robbery under § 2113(a) because it contains elements not required by the bank robbery statute. Applying the strict elements test from Schmuck v. United States requires a textual comparison of the two statutes. This comparison reveals that § 2113(b) requires proof of three elements not explicitly required by § 2113(a): 1) a specific 'intent to steal or purloin'; 2) that the property was 'carr[ied] away' (asportation); and 3) that the property value exceeded $1,000 for the felony offense. Because the elements of § 2113(b) are not a subset of the elements of § 2113(a), a defendant charged with bank robbery is not entitled to a jury instruction on bank larceny.
Dissenting - Justice Ginsburg
Yes. Bank larceny under § 2113(b) should be considered a lesser included offense of bank robbery under § 2113(a). The majority's 'woodenly literal' textual analysis ignores the clear common-law history where robbery was simply larceny aggravated by force or fear, making larceny a classic lesser included offense. Congress intended to codify these common-law crimes, and there is no evidence it meant to sever this traditional relationship. The elements of intent to steal and asportation, while explicit in the larceny statute, are implicitly required for robbery and the 1948 deletion of the word 'feloniously' was a stylistic, not substantive, change. The majority's holding creates anomalies, such as preventing prosecutions for receiving stolen goods from a bank robber under § 2113(c), and improperly shrinks the jury's choices.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a strict, textualist application of the 'elements test' for determining lesser included offenses under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 31(c). It establishes that courts must focus solely on the statutory language of the offenses, rather than on their common-law history or the factual overlap in a specific case. The ruling provides a clear and predictable framework but curtails a defendant's ability to receive a jury instruction on a closely related, less serious crime if that crime contains any formal element not present in the charged offense. This can force an 'all-or-nothing' verdict from the jury and may lead to what the dissent considers anomalous outcomes based on drafting quirks rather than substantive criminal conduct.
Unlock the full brief for Carter v. United States