voisine v united states, 136 s ct 2272 2016

2 UNITED STATES V. BENALLY SUMMARY* Criminal Law The panel filed an order amending an opinion filed August 1, 2016, and denied a petition for rehearing, in a case in which the panel reversed a conviction for using a firearm in connection with a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. Conduct like stumbling (or in our hypothetical, dropping a plate) is a true accident, and so too the injury arising from it; hence the difficulty of describing that conduct as the active employment of force. Congress passed the Lautenberg Amendment to the Gun Control Act, 18 U.S.C. But many perpetrators of domestic violence are charged with misdemeanors rather than felonies, notwithstanding the harmfulness of their conduct. & Loan Assn. 21, 2016)(9-0), the Court summarily ruled that the Second Amendment prohibits a state from categorically banning stun guns. It also includes (at least some) cases where a person intentionally creates force but recklessly applies it to a family member. PDF No. 20-1459 In the Supreme Court of the United States v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2272, 2276 (2016). 2272 (2016), available here. But Voisine asserts that common law battery requires a mens rea greater than recklessness and that the use of physical force implies intentional conduct. Argued February 29, 2016. But traditional principles of law would not generally transfer the actors intent to use force against the door to the girlfriend because, unlike placing someone in fear of bodily injury, slamming a door is not inherently wrongful and illegal conduct. An adverse ruling would exempt misdemeanants in thirty-four states from the scope of section 922. Death of an Eagle Hatches Supreme Court Firearms Case, United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. One v. Holder, 557 U.S. 193, 213 (2009) (Thomas, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part) (internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed, most had gone down that road decades before. Research demonstrates that domestic abusers who can access firearms increase the risk that their victims will suffer serious injury. The dissent argued that an assault conviction on the basis of reckless offensive physical contact did not constitute a use of physical force. Additionally, Voisine suggests that the phrase use of physical force in section 921 does not apply to reckless assaults, because use implies intentional and purposeful conduct. See id.at 1516. There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data. Whether and where conduct that we would today describe as reckless fits into that obscure scheme is anyones guess: Neither petitioners citations, nor the Governments competing ones, have succeeded in resolving that counterfactual question. . See Voisine, 778 F.3dat 182184. . Most courts treat battery as a general intent crime: one that encompasses not only intentional conduct, but also knowing and reckless conduct. See United States v. Castleman, 572 U.S. ___, ___ (2014) (slip op., at 13). Voisine and Armstrong filed a joint petition for certiorari, and shortly after issuing Castleman, this Court (without opinion) vacated the First Circuits judgments and remanded the cases for further consideration in light of that decision. Principles of lenity are inapplicable, because the common-law definition of battery, which includes reckless conduct, clearly applies. No. See Me. enters in only where a statute is susceptible of two constructions (internal quotation marks omitted)); Abramski v. United States, 573 U.S. ___, ___, n. 10 (2014) (slip op., at 18, n.10) (stating that the rule of lenity applies only in cases of genuine ambiguity). Characterizing misdemeanant domestic abusers convicted for reckless use of force with intentional offenders would conflate all domestic abuse with violent offenses, despite Congress intention to differentiate between the two. Section 921(a)(33)(A) defines that phrase to include a misdemeanor under federal, state, or tribal law, committed against a domestic relation that necessarily involves the use . of physical force. In Castleman, this Court held that a knowing or intentional assault qualifies as such a crime, but left open whether the same was true of a reckless assault. Assuming that provision defines a single crime (which happens to list alternative mental states)and accepting petitioners view that 921(a)(33)(A) requires at least a knowing mens reathen, under Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. ___ (2013), no conviction obtained under Maines statute could qualify as a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. See id., at ___ (slip op., at 5) (If a state crime sweeps more broadly than the federally defined one, a conviction for the state offense cannot count as a predicate, no matter what mens rea the defendant actually had). Ibid. But Voisine asserts that common law battery requires a. greater than recklessness and that the use of physical force implies intentional conduct. See supra, at 12, 8. Pp. See Brief for Respondent, United States at1720. E.g., Random House Dictionary of the English Language 748 (def. The District Court rejected those claims, and each petitioner pleaded guilty. Thus, the majority is left misapplying basic principles of criminal law to rationalize why all assault under the Model Penal Code constitutes the use of physical force under 921(a)(33)(A)(ii). McCoy v. United States, No. 16-3953 (8th Cir. 2020) :: Justia And [f]irearms and domestic strife are a potentially deadly combination. Hayes, 555 U.S., at 427. 1 Some of our cases have distinguished violent forceforce capable of causing physical injuryand common-law force, which included all nonconsensual touching, see Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133, 140141 (2010), but others have not, see United States v. Castleman, 572 U.S. ___, ___ (2014) (slip op., at 5). 6. United States Share Holding: A reckless domestic assault qualifies as a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" that prohibits firearms possession by convicted felons under 18 U.S.C. The use of physical force does not include crimes involving purely reckless conduct. 2015). See 572 U.S., at ______ (slip op., at 45); Brief for Petitioners 1315. And while it may be true that such incidents are rarely prosecuted, this decision leaves the right to keep and bear arms up to the discretion of federal, state, and local prosecutors. 3/29/2018 Voisine v. US, 136 S. Ct. 2272 - Supreme Court 2016 - Google Scholar . VIII : Statutes and guideline: Page . Anderson 's specific holdingthat Texas assault of a public servant qualifies as a crime of violence under the former Sentencing Guidelines' residual clause , 559 F.3d at 356 was abrogated by the Supreme Court in . This might include, for example, punching or kicking someone. 2272, 195 L.Ed.2d 736 (2016) 18 U.S.C. An intentional wrong is designed to inflict harm. See id.at 27. Otherwise, the Gun Owners Foundation (the Foundation) contends, section 922 would undercut the Second Amendment rights of misdemeanants to purchase and possess firearms legally. . (Congress must be presumed to have legislated under this known state of the laws). Federal law makes it a crime for anyone previously convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence to possess a firearm in or affecting commerce. 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9). And that indeterminacy confirms our conclusion that Congress had no thought of incorporating the common laws treatment of mens rea into 921(a)(33)(A). . bodily injury or offensive physical contact to another person. See Brief for Petitionersat 11. Each petitioner then entered a guilty plea conditioned on the right to appeal the District Courts ruling. 922 (g) (9). And in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), the Court held that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right. An existing provision already barred convicted felons from possessing firearms. . SeeBrief for Respondent at 3637. See Lewis v. United States, 518 U.S. 322, 325326 (1996). In calling the force in these cases nonvolitional, the majority has confounded the minimum mens rea generally necessary to trigger criminal liability (recklessness) with the requirement that a person perform a volitional act. See id. But if he slams the door shut with his girlfriend following close behind, then he has done soregardless of whether he thinks it absolutely sure or only quite likely that he will catch her fingers in the jamb. ALI, Model Penal Code 2.02(2)(c) (1962); Me. Under the majoritys reading, a single conviction under a state assault statute for recklessly causing an injury to a family membersuch as by texting while drivingcan now trigger a lifetime ban on gun ownership. 340342 (2d ed. Stephen Voisine was convicted under Maines domestic assault statute, which criminalizes the intentional, knowing, or reckless causation of bodily injury or offensive physical contract to another person. Voisine was then convicted under section 922. In an effort to close [a] dangerous loophole in the gun control laws, United States v. Castleman, 572 U.S. ___, ___, Congress extended the federal prohibition on firearms possession by convicted felons to persons convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9). Blacks Law Dictionary, for example, defines force to mean [p]ower, violence, or pressure directed against a person or thing. Blacks Law Dictionary 656 (7th ed. Nor does Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1, which held that the use of force excludes accidents. A misdemeanor crime of domestic violence is defined by 18 U.S.C. Voisine maintains that the word use does not apply to the accidental application of physical force. The Reckless Misapplication of Voisine to The Armed Career Criminal Act In the majoritys view, a husband who loses his grip on a plate or a boyfriend who lets the door slip has not engaged in a volitional act creating force. See Brief of Amici Curiae National Domestic Violence Hotline, et al., in Support of Respondentat 21. In reaching its contrary conclusion, the majority con-fuses various concepts. And Voisine v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2272 (2016), in which the Court interpreted a much broader force clause to include reckless misdemeanor domestic assaults, does not change this result. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence contends that Congress instituted this zero tolerance policy because of a lethal link between domestic abuse and firearm possession. Dictionaries consistently define the word use to mean the act of employing something. . . 238, 256 (1835) (Story, J.) Petitioners charging documents generically recited the statutory language; they did not charge intentional, knowing, and reckless harm as alternative counts. As Justice Holmes observed, [E]ven a dog distinguishes between being stumbled over and being kicked. O. Holmes, The Common Law 3 (1881). I would not extend the statute into that constitutionally problematic territory. We granted certiorari, 577 U.S. ___ (2015), to resolve a Circuit split over whether a misdemeanor conviction for recklessly assaulting a domestic relation disqualifies an individual from possessing a gun under 922(g)(9).2 We now affirm. See Brief for Petitioners 3236. And as we have shown, 921(a)(33)(A) plainly encompasses reckless assaults. See id. 1027 (Mar. And as explained above, the watershed change in how state legislatures thought of mens rea after the Model Penal Code makes the common law a bad match for the ordinary misdemeanor assault and battery statutes in Congresss sightline. Jess Bravin, Death of an Eagle Hatches Supreme Court Firearms Case, Wall Street Journal (Oct. 30, 2015). 2. PDF IN THE Su p r e our e C t he o t nit f U e d St at e s This is because the law traditionally treats conduct as intended in two circumstances. Law School Case Brief Voisine v. United States - 579 U.S. 686, 136 S. Ct. 2272 (2016) Rule: A reckless domestic assault qualifies as a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence under 18 U.S.C.S. The United States Supreme Court in Voisine v. United States, 136 S.Ct. Petitioners reading risks rendering 922(g)(9) broadly inoperative in the 35 jurisdictions with assault laws extending to recklessness. The Courts decision will affect the ability of misdemeanants to possess firearms and the health and safety of domestic violence victims. Ibid. Section 921(a)(33)(A)(ii)s prohibitions also include the threatened use of a deadly weapon. In that neighboring prohibition, use most naturally means active employment of the weapon. Each petitioners possession of a gun, following a conviction under Maine law for abusing a domestic partner, therefore violates 922(g)(9). PDF N HE Supreme Court of the United States Rev. In my view, a use of physical force most naturally refers to cases where a person intentionally creates force and intentionally applies that force against a family member. (b)So too does the relevant history. First, the majority requires that the use of force must be volitional, so that an involuntary motion, even a powerful one, is not naturally described as an active employment of force. Ante, at 56. So in linking 922(g)(9) to those laws, Congress must have known it was sweeping in some persons who had engaged in reckless conduct. However, the Court did not decide whether an assault conviction for offensive physical contact performed with the mens rea of recklessness sufficed as a section 922 predicate. 2. See Sorenson v. Secretary of Treasury, 475 U.S. 851, 860 (1986) (the same words in a statute presumptively have the same meaning). 921 (a) (33) (A) ("section 921") as a misdemeanor under federal, state, or tribal law that constitutes the "use of physical force" by a person in a domestic relationship with the victim. Bailey, supra, at 148. 18 U.S.C. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the two convictions, holding that an offense with a mens rea of recklessness may qualify as a misdemeanor crime of violence under 922(g)(9). United States v. Armstrong, 706 F.3d 1, 4 (2013); see United States v. Voisine, 495 Fed. But others suggest that Congress intended to give the amendment narrow effect, and that a broad reading may affect the Second Amendment rights of the least violent offenders. Stat. The court reached its judgment in a 6-2 majority. at 22. Federal law prohibits any person convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence from possessing a firearm. Today the majority expands 922(g)(9)s sweep into patently unconstitutional territory. 2003). See Tr. Neither labeling an act volitional nor labeling it a mere accident will rein in the majoritys overly broad understanding of a use of physical force.. Ann., Tit. PDF No. 16-847 In the Supreme Court of the United States See Brief for Petitioners 1822. . To illustrate where I part ways with the majority, consider different mental states with which a person could create and apply force.2 First, a person can create force intentionally or recklessly.3 For example, a person can intentionally throw a punch or a person can crash his car by driving recklessly. . Seeid.at 17. v. Chujoy, 2016 U . That was the backdrop against which Congress was legislating. United States v. Orona, No. 17-17508 (9th Cir. 2019) :: Justia See id.at 27. As the majority recognizes, the noun use means the act of employing something. Ante, at 5 (quoting dictionaries). See Castleman, 572 U.S., at ___ (slip op., at 13) ([T]he word use conveys the idea that the thing used (here, physical force) has been made the users instrument (some internal quotation marks omitted)). Pp. Second, a person can intentionally or recklessly harm a particular person or object as a result of that force. See Brief of Amicus Curiae Everytown for Gun Safety, in Support of Respondent at 1114. To be constitutional, therefore, a law that broadly frustrates an individuals right to keep and bear arms must target individuals who are beyond the scope of the People protected by the Second Amendment. To identify the scope of the use of physical force, consider three different types of intentional and reckless force resulting in physical injury. But we expressly left open whether a reckless assault also qualifies as a use of forceso that a misdemeanor conviction for such conduct would trigger 922(g)(9)s firearms ban. No. Gov't Br. [A]n act, as that term is ordinarily used, is a voluntary contraction of the muscles, and nothing more. Prosser and Keeton 8, at 34; see also Model Penal Code 2.01 (defining the voluntary act requirement). The majority distinguishes this volitional act requirement from the mental state of intention, knowledge, or recklessness with respect to the harmful consequences of his volitional conduct. Ibid. 1The Honorable Daniel L. Hovland, United States District Judge for the Districtconsecutive terms of 96 months' imprisonment for voluntary manslaughter and 120months' imprisonment for the firearms offense. in Opp. 1011 (counsel for petitioners acknowledging that this example involves the use of physical force). The United States concludes that a defendant does not need a specific reason to inflict injury. 94, 98C (2014); Minn. Stat. But we did so for reasons not present here. See id. Consider a couple of examples to see the ordinary meaning of the word use in this context. Take the Angry Plate Thrower: If a husband throws a plate at the wall near his wife to scare her, that is assault. of physical force indicates that 922(g)(9) distinguishes between domestic assaults committed knowingly or intentionally and those committed recklessly. See id. A misdemeanor crime of domestic violence is defined by. Some amici suggest that the Court should interpret section 922 narrowly.
Masters Swimming San Francisco, Articles V