Voisine v. United States
136 S. Ct. 2272, 2016 U.S. LEXIS 4061, 195 L. Ed. 2d 736 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A misdemeanor conviction for domestic assault based on reckless conduct satisfies the "use of physical force" element under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(A), thereby qualifying as a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" that triggers the federal prohibition on firearm possession under § 922(g)(9).
Facts:
- In 2004, Stephen Voisine assaulted his girlfriend.
- Voisine was convicted under a Maine law that criminalizes "intentionally, knowingly or recklessly cause[ing] bodily injury or offensive physical contact to another person."
- Years later, law enforcement officers learned that Voisine owned a rifle.
- In 2008, William Armstrong assaulted his wife.
- Armstrong was convicted under a Maine domestic violence law that incorporated the same assault definition ("intentionally, knowingly or recklessly") as the statute under which Voisine was convicted.
- A few years later, law enforcement officers found six guns and a large quantity of ammunition in Armstrong's home.
Procedural Posture:
- The U.S. Government charged Stephen Voisine and William Armstrong in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine with violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9).
- Both petitioners argued that their prior state misdemeanor convictions, which could have been based on reckless conduct, did not qualify as predicate offenses under the federal statute.
- The District Court rejected their claims.
- Each petitioner entered a conditional guilty plea, preserving the right to appeal the District Court's legal ruling.
- On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed both convictions.
- The U.S. Supreme Court initially granted certiorari, vacated the First Circuit's judgments, and remanded the cases for further consideration in light of United States v. Castleman.
- On remand, the First Circuit again affirmed the convictions.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari again to resolve a circuit split on the 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 a conviction for a misdemeanor assault that requires only a mens rea of recklessness qualify as a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), which requires that the predicate offense have, as an element, the "use ... of physical force"?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kagan
Yes. A misdemeanor conviction for a reckless domestic assault qualifies as a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" under § 922(g)(9). The statutory term "use of physical force" encompasses reckless conduct and is not limited to knowing or intentional acts. The ordinary meaning of "use" requires a volitional act of employing force but does not require a specific mental state regarding the consequences of that force. Reckless conduct, which involves a conscious disregard of a substantial risk of causing harm, is distinct from a mere accident and constitutes a volitional "use" of force. Furthermore, Congress enacted § 922(g)(9) to close a loophole where domestic abusers were convicted of misdemeanors, and at the time of enactment, the vast majority of state misdemeanor assault statutes covered reckless conduct. Excluding reckless offenses would therefore undermine the statute's legislative purpose and render it ineffective in most states.
Dissenting - Justice Thomas
No. A conviction based on mere recklessness does not have, as an element, the "use of physical force" because the word "use" inherently requires intentional conduct—the active employment of something for a purpose. Reckless conduct, unlike knowing or intentional conduct, does not involve the intent to cause harm. The majority's interpretation is overly broad and could encompass nonviolent, reckless acts, such as injuring a family member in a car accident caused by texting, which does not align with the conventional understanding of using force against another person. This expansive reading also creates serious Second Amendment concerns by imposing a lifetime firearms ban for minor, non-intentional conduct, and the Court should have adopted a narrower construction to avoid these constitutional issues.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and broadens the scope of the federal firearms ban for those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence. By holding that a mens rea of recklessness is sufficient, the Court ensures the ban applies uniformly in the majority of states whose assault statutes are based on the Model Penal Code. This strengthens the federal law's intended effect of keeping firearms away from all domestic abusers convicted under standard state laws, not just those whose actions were proven to be intentional. However, as the dissent highlights, the ruling pushes the boundary of what level of culpability can justify the permanent deprivation of a fundamental constitutional right, setting a precedent that may be tested in future Second Amendment challenges involving other non-intentional crimes.
Unlock the full brief for Voisine v. United States