Jones v. U.S.
526 U.S. 227 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the doctrine of constitutional avoidance, a federal statute establishing different maximum penalties based on the existence of certain facts will be interpreted as creating distinct offenses, making those facts elements that must be charged in an indictment, submitted to a jury, and proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Facts:
- Nathaniel Jones, along with accomplices Oliver and McMillan, confronted and robbed two men, Mutanna and Mardaie.
- During the encounter, Oliver struck Mutanna on the head with a gun.
- The blow to Mutanna's head caused a perforated eardrum, profuse bleeding, and some permanent hearing loss.
- Jones then forced Mardaie into Mutanna's Honda motor vehicle and drove away in it.
- After driving for some time, Jones stopped the car and released Mardaie.
- Police pursued Jones in the stolen car until he crashed into a telephone pole.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury indicted Nathaniel Jones for carjacking under 18 U.S.C. § 2119, without alleging that serious bodily injury resulted.
- At his arraignment, a Magistrate Judge informed Jones that the maximum penalty for the carjacking charge was 15 years in prison.
- At a trial in the U.S. District Court, the jury was instructed on the basic elements of carjacking and found Jones guilty.
- A presentence report recommended a 25-year sentence based on the fact that one victim suffered serious bodily injury.
- Over Jones's objection, the District Court judge found by a preponderance of the evidence that serious bodily injury had occurred and imposed a 25-year sentence for the carjacking count.
- Jones (appellant) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, arguing that serious bodily injury was an element of the offense.
- The Ninth Circuit (appellee: United States) affirmed the sentence, holding that the statutory provisions for increased penalties were sentencing factors for the judge to determine, not elements of separate offenses.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Jones's petition for a writ of certiorari.
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 federal carjacking statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2119, treat the fact of 'serious bodily injury,' which increases the maximum penalty, as an element of a distinct offense that must be proven to a jury?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Souter
Yes. The federal carjacking statute establishes three distinct offenses, and 'serious bodily injury' is an element of the aggravated offense that must be charged in an indictment and proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The statute's text is ambiguous, but interpreting the provisions for serious bodily injury and death as mere sentencing factors would raise grave constitutional questions under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause and the Sixth Amendment's right to a jury trial. To treat a fact that elevates the maximum sentence from 15 years to 25 years as a sentencing factor for a judge to decide by a preponderance of the evidence would unconstitutionally diminish the jury's role. Therefore, the Court applies the canon of constitutional avoidance and construes the statute to require that these facts be treated as elements of separate, more serious offenses.
Dissenting - Justice Kennedy
No. The statute defines a single offense in its first paragraph, with the subsections providing sentencing factors for the judge to consider. The harm resulting from a crime is a traditional sentencing factor, and the statute's structure is best read as defining one complete crime followed by punishment provisions. The majority improperly invokes the constitutional avoidance doctrine because there is no genuine statutory ambiguity, and recent precedent like Almendarez-Torres v. United States affirmed Congress's power to treat facts that increase a maximum sentence as sentencing factors. The majority's holding unnecessarily creates constitutional doubt where none existed and will disrupt established federal and state sentencing practices.
Concurring - Justice Stevens
Yes. While joining the Court's opinion, this concurrence asserts that it is affirmatively unconstitutional for a legislature to remove from the jury the assessment of any fact that increases the prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed. Such facts must be established by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Previous cases that departed from this principle, such as McMillan v. Pennsylvania, should be reconsidered.
Concurring - Justice Scalia
Yes. This concurrence reiterates the view that it is unconstitutional to remove from the jury the assessment of facts that alter the congressionally prescribed range of penalties for a criminal defendant. Because criminal statutes must be interpreted to avoid this constitutional violation, any ambiguity must be resolved in favor of treating such facts as elements of the offense. Therefore, the Court's construction of the statute is correct.
Analysis:
This case marked a significant turning point in Sixth Amendment jurisprudence, signaling the Court's increasing skepticism of sentencing schemes that shift fact-finding authority from the jury to the judge. Although decided on statutory grounds through the doctrine of constitutional avoidance, Jones v. United States laid the foundation for the landmark constitutional rule announced in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000). The Court's reasoning foreshadowed its future holding that, other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This decision began a process of reasserting the jury's constitutional role in determining all facts essential to the punishment.
Unlock the full brief for Jones v. U.S.