Smith v. United States
508 U.S. 223 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The term "use" of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) is not limited to its function as a weapon but also encompasses bartering or trading the firearm as a commodity during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime.
Facts:
- John Angus Smith traveled from Tennessee to Florida with the intent to purchase cocaine for resale.
- In Florida, Smith met with an acquaintance, Deborah Hoag, who was acting as a confidential informant for the Broward County Sheriff's Office.
- Hoag arranged a meeting between Smith and an undercover officer who was posing as a pawnshop dealer.
- During the meeting, Smith offered to trade his MAC-10 machine gun and an accompanying silencer to the undercover officer in exchange for two ounces of cocaine.
- After the officer left to supposedly acquire the drugs, Smith departed the location and was later apprehended by law enforcement following a high-speed chase.
- A search of Smith's vehicle revealed the MAC-10, along with several other firearms and ammunition.
Procedural Posture:
- A grand jury in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida indicted Smith for multiple offenses, including using a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime.
- Following a trial, the jury convicted Smith on all counts.
- Smith appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, arguing that trading a gun for drugs was not a 'use' under the statute.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, finding the statute's plain language did not require the firearm to be used as a weapon.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Circuit Courts of Appeals 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 exchange of a firearm for illegal drugs constitute 'use' of the firearm 'during and in relation to any... drug trafficking crime' within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O’Connor
Yes, the exchange of a firearm for drugs constitutes a 'use' under the statute. The word 'use' should be construed according to its ordinary or natural meaning, which includes 'to employ' or 'to convert to one's service.' By offering to trade his MAC-10 for cocaine, Smith employed it as an item of barter to achieve the object of his drug trafficking crime. The statute's language does not contain a limiting phrase like 'as a weapon,' and the Court declined to add one. Furthermore, the statutory scheme in the related forfeiture provision, § 924(d), clearly contemplates that trading a firearm constitutes 'use.' Finally, the rule of lenity does not apply because the statute is not ambiguous when its language, context, and purpose are considered.
Dissenting - Justice Scalia
No, trading a firearm for drugs does not constitute 'use' under the statute. In the context of the phrase 'uses a firearm,' the ordinary meaning of 'use' is to employ the firearm for its intended purpose, which is as a weapon. The majority's broad, dictionary-based interpretation ignores this common-sense understanding and creates an illogical distinction with the accompanying term 'carries' a firearm. The dissent's interpretation provides a more reasonable dichotomy between 'using' a firearm (as a weapon) and 'carrying' it for potential use as a weapon. At a minimum, the statute is ambiguous, and the rule of lenity should be applied to resolve the doubt in favor of the petitioner.
Concurring - Justice Blackmun
Yes, the petitioner's conduct constituted a 'use' of a firearm under the statute. I join the Court's opinion in full but write to clarify that the decision does not foreclose the possibility that the 'in relation to' language of § 924(c)(1) might require more than mere furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Because the petitioner's use of the firearm in this case meets any reasonable construction of the phrase, it is unnecessary to determine the precise contours of the 'in relation to' requirement.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadened the interpretation of 'uses a firearm' in a key federal criminal statute, moving beyond the intuitive meaning of using a gun as a weapon. It established that employing a firearm as an object of barter in a drug crime triggers the statute's severe mandatory minimum sentences. This textualist approach, relying on dictionary definitions and statutory structure over perceived legislative purpose, has implications for how courts interpret common words in criminal statutes, potentially leading to harsher outcomes where conduct falls within a broad, literal definition of a statutory term. The case highlights the ongoing judicial debate between plain-meaning textualism and context-driven interpretation.
Unlock the full brief for Smith v. United States