Wisconsin v. Mitchell

United States Supreme Court
508 U.S. 476 (1993)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A statute that enhances a criminal sentence because the defendant intentionally selected the victim based on a protected status, such as race, does not violate the First Amendment because it punishes discriminatory conduct, not abstract beliefs.

Facts:

On October 7, 1989, a group of young black men, including Todd Mitchell, gathered at an apartment complex.
Several members of the group discussed a scene from the movie “Mississippi Burning” in which a white man beat a young black boy.
The group moved outside, and Mitchell asked them if they felt “hyped up to move on some white people.”
Shortly after, a young white boy approached on the opposite side of the street.
Mitchell said to the group, “There goes a white boy; go get him,” then counted to three and pointed at the boy.
The group ran toward the boy, beat him severely, and stole his tennis shoes.
As a result of the attack, the boy was rendered unconscious and remained in a coma for four days.

Procedural Posture:

Todd Mitchell was convicted of aggravated battery by a jury in the Circuit Court for Kenosha County, Wisconsin (a state trial court).
The jury found that Mitchell intentionally selected his victim based on race, which triggered Wisconsin's penalty-enhancement statute.
The Circuit Court sentenced Mitchell to four years' imprisonment, a sentence enhanced by the statute.
Mitchell's motion for postconviction relief in the Circuit Court was denied.
Mitchell (as appellant) appealed to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, which affirmed the conviction and rejected his First Amendment challenge.
Mitchell (as appellant) then appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which reversed the lower court's decision, holding that the penalty-enhancement statute violated the First Amendment.
The State of Wisconsin (as petitioner) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.

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 state statute that enhances a criminal sentence because the defendant intentionally selected the victim based on race violate the First Amendment's protection of free speech?

Opinions:

Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist

No. A statute enhancing a penalty for a crime where the victim was intentionally selected based on race does not violate the First Amendment. The statute is aimed at conduct unprotected by the First Amendment, not expressive activity. While abstract beliefs cannot be punished, motive is a long-accepted factor in sentencing. The state has a legitimate interest in punishing bias-motivated crimes more severely because they are more likely to provoke retaliation, inflict distinct emotional harm on victims, and incite community unrest. This statute is distinguishable from the ordinance struck down in R.A.V. v. St. Paul, which was explicitly directed at expression, whereas the Wisconsin statute targets criminal conduct. Furthermore, the First Amendment does not prohibit the evidentiary use of a defendant's speech to prove motive or intent.

Analysis:

This landmark decision solidified the constitutionality of hate crime penalty-enhancement statutes. It drew a critical distinction between punishing a person for their bigoted beliefs, which is unconstitutional, and punishing criminal conduct that is motivated by those beliefs, which is permissible. The Court's reasoning, which focused on the greater societal harm caused by bias-motivated crimes, provided a clear legal foundation for states and the federal government to enact and enforce hate crime laws. The case established that motive is a legitimate consideration in sentencing and that using speech as evidence of motive does not unconstitutionally chill protected expression.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature