Holloway v. United States
526 U.S. 1 (1999) (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The specific intent element of the federal carjacking statute, which requires an "intent to cause death or serious bodily harm," is satisfied by proof of a conditional intent. The government need only prove that the defendant intended to seriously harm or kill the victim if necessary to effectuate the carjacking.
Facts:
- Petitioner Holloway and an armed accomplice committed three separate carjackings.
- In each instance, they identified a target vehicle and followed it until it was parked.
- The accomplice would then approach the driver, produce a handgun, and threaten to shoot unless the driver surrendered the car keys.
- The accomplice later testified that their plan was to steal the cars without violence, but that he would have used his gun if any victim had given him a 'hard time.'
- During one of the carjackings, a victim hesitated, and Holloway punched him in the face.
- No other actual violence occurred during the carjackings.
Procedural Posture:
- A jury in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York found petitioner guilty on three counts of carjacking.
- At trial, the District Judge instructed the jury, over petitioner's objection, that a conditional intent to harm victims if they refused to comply satisfied the statute's intent element.
- Petitioner filed a post-verdict motion for a new trial, arguing the jury instruction was erroneous, but the District Court denied the motion.
- Petitioner (appellant) appealed the conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- A divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that conditional intent was sufficient.
- 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 phrase "with the intent to cause death or serious bodily harm" in the federal carjacking statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2119, require the government to prove a defendant's unconditional intent to harm, or is a conditional intent to harm if necessary to complete the carjacking sufficient to satisfy the statute's mens rea requirement?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stevens
No. The phrase "with the intent to cause death or serious bodily harm" does not require proof of an unconditional intent; it is satisfied when the government proves the defendant possessed the intent to seriously harm or kill the driver if necessary to steal the car. The statute's mens rea component modifies the act of taking the vehicle at the moment of intimidation. Interpreting the statute to require only unconditional intent would improperly transform this mental element into an additional actus reus (attempted harm) and would exclude from coverage most of the conduct Congress sought to prohibit. The Court presumes Congress was aware of the well-established common law principle that specific intent can be conditional, as a defendant may not negate a proscribed intent by imposing a condition they have no right to enforce. This reading serves the statute's broad deterrent purpose without rendering the 'force and violence or by intimidation' element superfluous.
Dissenting - Justice Scalia
Yes. The statute requires an unconditional intent because the plain meaning of the word "intent" does not encompass a purpose that is contingent on a condition the speaker hopes will not occur. A person does not "intend" to bring about a result they are actively trying to avoid. The majority's interpretation contorts ordinary English usage; 'conditional intent' is not embraced by the word 'intent' any more than a 'sea lion' is by the word 'lion.' Applying the majority's logic to other federal statutes requiring intent would lead to absurd results. It is plausible that Congress only meant to target the most savage carjackings where harm is an unconditional goal, and at a minimum, the statute is ambiguous and the rule of lenity should be applied in the defendant's favor.
Dissenting - Justice Thomas
Yes. The statute requires an unconditional intent because the text of 18 U.S.C. § 2119 is silent as to the definition of 'intent,' and federal law lacks a general statutory definition that includes conditional intent. The legal authority cited by the majority does not demonstrate a well-established historical tradition of interpreting 'intent' to include conditional intent. Absent such a tradition, it cannot be presumed that Congress was familiar with this specific usage when enacting the statute. Therefore, the statute should not be read to include the concept of conditional intent.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the mens rea standard for the federal carjacking statute, broadening its practical application. By holding that conditional intent is sufficient, the Court makes it substantially easier for prosecutors to secure convictions in the most common carjacking scenarios, where a weapon is brandished as a threat to compel compliance. The ruling aligns this federal statute with the majority view in common law that specific intent elements are satisfied even if the intended harm is contingent upon the victim's resistance. The dissent, however, highlights an ongoing jurisprudential conflict between purposivist interpretation and textualism, arguing that the Court's reading defies the ordinary meaning of 'intent' and bypasses the rule of lenity.
Unlock the full brief for Holloway v. United States