Document: 530 U.S. 255120 S.Ct. 2159147 L.Ed.2d 203 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of United States Reports. Readers are requested notify Reporter Decisions, Supreme Court States, Washington, D. C. 20543, any typographical or other errors, order that corrections may be made goes press.CARTERv.UNITED STATES No. 99-5716. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED Argued April 19, 2000 Decided June 12, Syllabus Having donned a ski mask and entered bank, petitioner Carter confronted an exiting customer pushed her back inside. She screamed, startling others bank. Undeterred, ran inside leaped over counter through one teller windows. A rushed into manager's office. Meanwhile, opened several drawers emptied money bag. After removing almost $16,000, he jumped fled. He was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), which punishes "[w]hoever, by force violence, intimidation, takes - thing value [from a] bank." While not contesting basic facts, pleaded guilty on theory had taken bank's "by intimidation," as §2113(a) requires. Before trial, moved for jury instruction offense described §2113(b) lesser included §2113(a). Section 2113(b) entails less severe penalties than §2113(a), punishing, inter alia, "[w]hoever carries away, intent steal purloin, exceeding $1,000 The District denied motion. jury, instructed alone, returned verdict, pursuant judgment. Third Circuit affirmed. Held: Because requires three elements required it prohibited matter law from obtaining §2113(b). Pp. 3-18. (a) In Schmuck v. 489 705, 716, this held defendant who requests under Federal Rule Criminal Procedure 31(c) must demonstrate subset offense. test textual comparison criminal statutes, lends itself certain predictable outcomes. Id., at 720. Here, Government contends "textual comparison" two offenses suggests correct. Whereas (1) act "with purloin," (2) "tak[e] carr[y] away" property, (3) property have "value $1,000," contains no such requirements. These extra clauses subsection (b) cannot regarded mere surplusage; they mean something. Potter 155 438, 446. rejects Carter's assertion foregoing application too rigid. Although correct normal principles statutory construction apply, his claim counsel departure here what indicated straightforward reading text. 3-6. arguments pertinent general relationship between §§2113(a) (b). His first contention-that would anomalous impose liability fence receives bank violator, text §2113(c) plainly provides, but unless §2113(a)-is unpersuasive because anomaly, if truly exists, only anomaly. It doubtful rises level absurdity. Cf. Green Bock Laundry Machine Co., 490 504, 509-511, 527. event, nothing purports redefine more substantial, second argument-that, insofar similar common-law robbery larceny, assume require same their predecessors, absent Congress' affirmative indication displace scheme-is also unavailing canon imputing meaning applies when Congress makes use term established common law. See, e.g., Morissette 342 246, 263. "robbery" "larceny" terms meanings, neither appears §2113's title, title statute sheds light some ambiguous word phrase itself. E.g., Pennsylvania Dept. Corrections Yeskey, 524 206, 212. does illuminates language. 6-10. (c) specific concerning §2113(b)'s "extra" elements. 10-18. (i) mistaken argues "intent purloin" requirement deemed implicit virtue Court's cases interpreting statutes silent mens rea include broadly applicable scienter requirements, see, X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 64, 70. presumption favor generally court read necessary separate wrongful conduct "otherwise innocent conduct." 72. case, apply person engages innocent, aberrant, activity accomplished simply requiring intent-i.e., proof knowledge respect crime's actus reus (here, taking another violence intimidation). Staples 511 600, 611-612. And once mental state shown, concerns underlying fully satisfied, forceful taking-even good-faith right-falls outside realm innocent." Thus, justify requirement-"intent purloin"- reliance §2113(a)'s legislative history approach interpretation, begins examining text, Estate Cowart Nicklos Drilling 505 469, 475, psychoanalyzing those enacted it, Bank One Chicago, N. A. Midwest & Trust 516 264, 279. 10-14. (ii) Similarly, "takes should fails. argument "takes" equivalent war statute's suggestion dispositive evolution sought discard asportation ignores fact inquiry product efforts, speculation internal thought processes its Members. free outlaw theft involve asportation, hardly been absurd do so, since taking-without-asportation scenario has actually occurred. law's decision virtues, adopted different view question choice. 14-15. (iii) Finally, disagrees $1,000" sentencing factor, element crime. First, structure strongly paragraphs-the uses question, refers $1,000"-describe distinct offenses. Each "[w]hoever," proceeds describe identically (apart differing valuation requirements) offense, concludes stating prescribed punishment. That these provisions "stand own grammatical feet" intended each paragraph's rather factor base Jones 526 227, 234. Furthermore, steeply higher penalties-an enhancement 1-year 10-year maximum penalty $1,000-leads conclusion paragraph. Castillo ante, ---. constitutional questions raised persuade adopt element. See Jones, supra, 239-252. 15-18. 185 F.3d 863, CERTIORARI TO APPEALSFOR THIRD CIRCUIT Thomas, J., delivered Court, Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, JJ., joined. Ginsburg, filed dissenting opinion, Stevens, Souter, Breyer, Opinion Justice Thomas Court. 1 705 (1989), we Rules "the offense." 716. case us 2113(a) (1994 ed. Supp. IV). former presence belonging to, possession of, ." latter, penalties, punishes, We hold §2113(a)-three fact-and therefore Petitioner accordingly 2 * On September 9, 1997, Floyd J. Collective Savings Hamilton Township, New Jersey. service tellers having removed $16,000 currency, fled scene. Later day, police apprehended him. 3 grand indicted Carter, charging him facts episode, instruct relying Mosley, 126 200 (CA3 1997),1 motion ruling. At close Government's judgment acquittal ruling denying stand. verdict. 4 Appeals affirmed unpublished earlier Mosley. Judgment reported 863 (1999). Ninth agrees precluded context, see Gregory, 891 F.2d 732, 734 (CA9 1989), Circuits contrary, Walker, 75 178, 180 (CA4 1996); Brittain, 41 1409, 1410 (CA10 1994). granted certiorari resolve conflict, 528 1060 (1999), now affirm. II 5 Schmuck, were called upon interpret 31(c)'s provision "[t]he found necessarily charged." test, "one `necessarily included' U.S., 716.2 "a statutes," that, explained, "certain predictable" 720.3 6 Applying tampering odometer, 15 1984 1990c(a) (1982 ed.), mail fraud, 1341. explained fraud elements-(1) devised intending devise scheme defraud (or perform specified fraudulent acts), purpose executing, attempting execute, acts). odometer tampering, however, knowingly willfully causing altered, fraud. Accordingly, latter entitled 31(c). 721-722. 7 Turning instant paragraph §2113(a): steal; asportation; $1,000. provides: 8 "§2113. incidental crimes 9 "(a) Whoever, takes, attempts take, another, obtains obtain extortion care, custody, control, management, credit union, savings loan association 10 . 11 "Shall fined imprisoned twenty years, both. 12 "(b) Whoever association, shall ten both; 13 "Whoever year, both." 14 whereas requirement. Second, "tak[e]" property. Third, "cannot [they] mea[n] something." 446 (1894). urges Schmuck's rigid submits ordinary interpretation relevant inquiry. dispute proposition. after all, exercise made, sensible apply. disagree, petitioner's III 16 begin §2113 supports (a). points §2113, imposes "receives, possesses, conceals, stores, barters, sells, disposes stolen violation (b)." (Emphasis added.) anomalous, posits apply-as provides-only violator anomaly disappears, concludes, always violated violated-i.e., 17 But anomaly-even exists-is claim, tend doubt, 509-511 (1989); id., 527 (Scalia, concurring judgment). For example, violators while commonly assisted fences. affairs, punish fences Or violates usually-if inevitably-also (b), so punished reference violation. subsections substantial. least (whether history) scheme. (and Government) agree issue bear resemblance Brief 29 (citing W. Blackstone, Commentaries 229, 232); accord, post, 4-6, observation beside point. law, point statute. 19 limited scope long understood. 246 (1952), articulated way: 20 "[W]here borrows art accumulated legal tradition centuries practice, presumably knows adopts cluster ideas attached borrowed body learning will convey judicial mind otherwise instructed. absence contrary direction satisfaction widely accepted definitions, them." 263 (emphasis added). 21 words, "cluster ideas" imported employs term, when, here, describes analogous crime without using terms. 22 clear Wells, 519 482 (1997). whether 1014-which "knowingly false statement report influencing way action" Deposit Insurance Corporation insured "upon application, advance, commitment, loan"-requires materiality "false statement." defendants contended statement"-type §1014. Stevens dissent meritorious, rejected it: 23 "[F]undamentally, disagree our colleague's apparent every aspect used seems `false statement' perjury, perjury criminalizes material statements, criminalizing statements' covers statements. By parity reasoning, involved statements oath, reach oath. impossible believe restrictions sub silentio, rule sweep broadly." 492, n. added; citation omitted).4 24 Turley, 352 407 (1957), declined look issue-"stolen"-had 411-412 ("[W]hile `stolen' constantly identified never equated exclusively dedicated larceny" (internal quotation marks omitted)). 25 contrast, hesitated turn guidance contain Neder addressed federal punishing "scheme artifice defraud." 20, 20-21, nn. 3-4 1341 1343, 1344). Unlike contained did term-"defraud." 22. materiality, applied implicitly well. 23. Evans 504 255, 261-264 (1992), observed "extortion" 1951 proceeded 26 undisputed meanings §2113(b).5 appear " `[is] [it] shed[s] phrase' 212 (1998) (quoting Trainmen Baltimore Ohio R. 331 519, 528-529 (1947) (modifications original)). bearing case. IV 27 conceding requirements §2113(a)-(1) purloin"; away," i.e., (first paragraph)-Carter claims third all. 28 As recalled explicit kind. nevertheless present "our even where 70 (1994).6 Properly demands intent-that is, possessed explaining why cases, Lewis, 628 1276, 1279 1980), cert. denied, 450 924 (1981), help make distinction "general" "specific" esoteric. took gunpoint, deliberately failed quick getaway hope being arrested prison treated alcoholism. Though engaged acts (satisfying "general intent"), intend permanently deprive (failing satisfy "specific intent").7 LaFave Scott, Substantive Law §3.5, p. 315 (1986) (distinguishing intent). 30 600 (1994), avoid gun ownership, interpreted firearms knew weapon characteristics bringing within also, Liparota 471 419, 426 (1985); Morissette, 270-271. situations call implying Suppose, identical words purloin." Such run risk seemingly peaceably believing his. Reading possess reus-i.e., know physically money-would fail protect actor. need intent, take 31 Staples, suffices innocent" conduct. certainly hypothetical sleepwalking (innocent, aberrant activity), result requiring, did, purloin"-into §2113(a).8 32 Independent scienter, notion steal" out 1934, adverb "feloniously" (which all steal") modifying verb "takes." Act May 18, ch. 304, §2(a), 48 Stat. 783. 1937, added Aug. 24, 747, 50 749. 1948, changes deleting dividing subsections. 62 796. 33 1948 deletion merely stylistic change, intention, word, drop property-that steal.9 misunderstands interpretation. analyzing statute, 475 "psychoanalyzing it," 279 (1996) part doubt sufficient akin spelled 34 Contrary dissent's suggestion, 9-11, fanciful one. (a), permits like 11, ex-convict robs wants prison. (The represents indictments pattern invariably plead hence decisions) brought "as often year," 22, 13.) can said, therefore, delete defendants. determination, motivation end. 510-511.10 B 35 dispute, away property," acknowledge subsection. 36 But, again, focuses analysis imagined hypothetical. State Boyle, 970 S. 2d 835, 836, 838-839 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998) (construing codification who, threat force, dropped spot). Indeed, leading treatise applauds robbery. §8.11, 439. No virtues. C 37 There remains $1,000"-a notably shifting gears previous arguments, concedes affect disagree. 234 Even aside structure, "steeply penalties"-an conclude -- (slip op., 7); 233. 38 (b)'s element, nonetheless Post, 14-16. reasons component Hence, prevent wishes receive §2113(b)-which paragraph, realistic option jury's standpoint clearly exceeds $1,000-the sees reason bar making election, though 39 novel maneuver creates problem, however. Since requirement, effectively "waive [Fifth Amendment] right notice indictment `value $1,000' element." 16. course available prosecutor seeks insurance policy determining fallen short proving For, whatever authority defense waive defendant's rights, York Hill, --- (2000), power. disabled 31(c), explicitly interpretive permitted defendant, effect waiving notice, [to] [included] circumstances restraint seeking instruction," 718. 40 42 ordered. NOTES: Mosley address today, 523 1019 (1997), dismissed petition death petitioner, 525 120 (per curiam). "lesser offense," meant magnitude When offense" attains status "independent prerequisite evidence trial could rationally find yet acquit greater." Keeble 412 205, 208 (1973)). holding fails went Wells discuss (specifically, recodification numerous sections), revealed care retaining sections omitting others, Wells. According dissent, here. 13. assuming regard, rest discussion evolution. Rather, characterized supporting already reached grounds. 492 ("Statutory confirms natural reading"). done elsewhere, 2112 2114, 2115), thereby leaving definition instead followed prevalent practice spelling crimes. (1986). principle exists quite apart meaning. (applying proscribing shipping receiving visual depictions minors engaging sexually conduct, inquiring existence antecedent offense); (1994) (similar). Lewis determined presented, thus disputes characterization illustrating situation intent. F.2d, 1279). acknowledge, determination suggested arrested, kept money. Ibid. court, acknowledging possibility (if Lewis) might unconditionally himself completing theft, hold, alternative, ibid. Numerous Courts agree. version crime, courts construed Gonyea, 140 649, 653-654, (CA6 (collecting cases). Relatedly, deleted "feloniously," adequately explain intention Act. House Report, states "changes phraseology." H. Rep. 80th Cong., 1st Sess., A135 (1947). further phraseology concern desired references felonies misdemeanors 1. fails, Report give connection simultaneous elimination language sections. A67 ("References omitted definitive section title") (explaining revisions 751). history, relevant, conflicting inferences provides scant illumination. support Prince 322 steal." subsection, let alone compare them 43 whom Breyer join, dissenting. 44 larceny plus putting fear. aggravated form Congress, I conclude, depart traditional understanding rendered "Bank crimes" holds 2113 dislodged mooring. determination. 45 presents properly withheld elements-based (1989). lacks. Ante, carrying "asportation," not. 15. third, 15-17. points, mistaken. essential sustain conviction degree larceny. disqualified account sought. 46 note outset toward 2113(c) If covered §2113(b), robbery, then concedes, 6, today's gets loot larcenist "stolen (b)," robber Once recognized vanishes. anyone commits just larcenist.1 47 emphasize well crimes." repeatedly `the heading section' `tools resolution doubt' about statute." Almendarez-Torres 224, (1947)).2 Robbery, agree, consistently ordinarily laws accordance origins, directed otherwise. 1, (1999) ("[W]here settled infer, dictates, means incorporate terms." modifications omitted)); 259 (1992) ("It familiar `maxim presumed meaning.' ") Taylor 495 575, 592 (1990)); 407, 411 (1957) ("We recognize defining meaning."). (1952): 49 then, am guided "robbery Specifically, defined felonious taking, personal goods another." 230 (Blackstone) omitted). turn, effected 29-30 pp. 437-438 (LaFave Scott)). Larceny Blackstone *241 (robbery "[o]pen violent larciny person" deleted)); E. East, Pleas Crown §124, 707 (1803) species "aggravated larceny"); Russell Greaves, Crimes Misdemeanors 101 ("robbery larceny"). Closer inspection both relationship. First most essentially, entailed intentional taking. 241 forcible value, fear"); "felonious goods, presence, against will, fear"). above quotations indicate, "felonious," signifying steal. 232 ("This felonious; animo furandi [with steal]: or, civil expresses lucri causa [for sake gain]."); Black's Dictionary 555 (5th 1979) ("Felonious" "[a] technical commit crime"). again Scott 439 ("Just thief `take' (secure dominion over) `carry away' (move slightly) (in sense slight movement) property." (footnotes component: intimidation. *242 ("[P]utting fear criterion distinguishes larcinies.").3 51 Precedent instructs presume adhered altogether affirmatively design, codifying 52 Far signaling predecessor adhere ranking during install new conceptions severed foundations. 53 Prior criminalize larceny; punishable precursor response outbreak robberies committed John Dillinger evaded capture authorities moving State. Jerome 318 101, 102 (1943) (1934 aimed "interstate operations gangsters banks-activities local frequently unable cope"). area, aim reshape altering chose practically Blackstone's Commentaries: 54 "Whoever, fear, feloniously $5,000 2(a), 55 soon became apparent, legislation left gap: intentionally, violently, stole Within few enforcers endeavored gap. letter Speaker House, Attorney General conveyed Executive Branch's official position: "The burglary led incongruous results." 75th (1937) (reprinting letter). particular, cited example $11,000 temporarily absent. 1-2. asked amend specifically add shorn 2. responded passing "[t]o larceny." Act's provision, placed very "whoever carry money, anything slightest sign proposed tracking formulation, advocated change something less. Nor there change. place 1934 continued (as 13) 56 crimes, delineated 25, 796-797. codification, substantially form. 57 forms basis prime characterizing namely, unlike longer gain prove perpetrator's acknowledges "rob" "without elaboration," intends retain 16, 9. removal showed dispense 58 true current not.4 element-based compared words. deviation origins congressional contrary. Guided historical code, continues 59 sense. convicted resort accomplish purpose. steal? scenarios which, maintains, lacking involves terrorist aiming disrupt business; ex-convict, cope life society, 60 involving scenario, none. To illustrate cites 1276 presenting staged situation. Lewis-a relies heavily, 14-were strange, say least. Hoping sent treatment alcoholism time pursue writing hobby, detective informed rob 1277. discussed little plans chief, undercover officers, psychologist. allowed picture posted banks identification. Following much-awaited heist, outer foyer officers surveillance. 1278. 61 sure exhibiting kind "bizarre behavior," ibid., lack Tenth Circuit, note, duty infer concluded spent it." 1279.) proper disposition, sort extremely rare-the nationwide, per year. Moreover, foils robbing Chicago lying low South Bend, orchestrates hands constable poses problem normally expect trigger response. sum, resist notion-apparently embraced 14-that grant homesick ex-convicts wish return cover fictional terrorist, frustrated holder "withdraws" $100 rightfully his, thrill seeker up driving around block car returning loot, whose exploits seldom encountered pages school exams. cause suspect substantive Nothing indicates perception prosecutorial need. design alter 322, 326, ("The substantial [1948] revision" §2113); U. S, 269, Revision create recodify existence."). recognized, "it `feloniously' effort inasmuch 1" repealed.5 200, 205 1997). Richardson, 687 952, 957 (CA7 1982) (giving revision). attribute stripped larcenous design.6 63 Our conclusion. displayed revolver, robbed entering felony, judge sentenced him, consecutively, years entering-with-intent 324. reversed decision. held, merges consummated. punishment exceed sentence authorized consummated 329. reaching Prince, noted proscription enlarged 1937 provisions, "[i]t manifestly establish offenses." 327. stated "heart [entering] steal," "[t]his completed consummated." 328. conveys comprehension central entry 64 relied 7-8, federally 1014 materiality. concluding "come showing acquired implication came §1014." 491. "no law." "Congress codify comparable §1014; consolidated relating financial institutions" single regulatory Three observed, express lost consolidation. 492-493. From fact, inferred `materiality' 493. via "feloniously"; effect, much 65 steal, linkage reveals error. includes says Both 5. (b)-which maintains primary focus analysis-mirrors precisely. typically "taking" "carrying away." *231 (helpfully reminding "cepit et asportavit old law-latin"). hand, "somewhat undetailed language," mention 231, encompass asportation. overlooks completely feature terminology. moreover, modest one: movement do. 439; Misdemeanors, 152-* 153. tracks conclusory notwithstanding, §2113(a)," 15, doing minimal prosecutions continue 66 reasoning it. bears emphasis, dollar arguably impeding classification contend misdemeanor contention Surely lower grade successfully defend charge distinguishing (force intimidation), $500 $5,000. Under barred 67 securely encompasses petit automatically grades 229 (petit "considerably distinguished punishment, otherwise"). And, 4-5, key purposes allow easy discrete 720-721. distinguish culpable getting grade. felony requesting describing larceny.7 68 sure, request covering tantamount waiver Stirone 361 212, 215 (1960) (Fifth Amendment get prosecute felony). likely prosecution consent. limit asymmetry, unusual circumstance presented serves charged. 69 2113(b). opposite conclusion, gives shrift origin §2113. woodenly literal rise practical anomalies, 2-3, shrinks choices enlarging prosecutor's options. dissent. Double Jeopardy Clause acquitted-or, indeed, convicted-by facts. Blockburger 284 299 (1932) (Double consecutive not); Tr. Oral Arg. 46-47 inquiry, acquitted open thereafter seek reindictment larceny). majority "shed phrase," guide overall 10. imposed wooden arbitrary limitation, good reason: elusive, illuminating, pinpoint source ambiguity. English Regina Skivington, Crim. 167, 170 (C. 1967) ("[L]arceny ingredient honest belief man defence negatives ingredients ."). enactment Theft Act, 1968, embezzlement, conversion Director Public Prosecutions Gomez, 96 359, 377 (H. L. 1992) (Lord Lowry, dissenting), reaffirmed Guy, 93 108, 111 1991) ("[Section 8(1) 1968] additional ingredient, namely put subjected force. Therefore must, definition, theft."). Leading commentators 437 ("Robbery ."); Wright, Practice §515, (2d Notably, 12. various classes 3559. provided number ways. simplest e.g.: "It accused lacked 645 (criminalizing embezzlement providing interest [the embezzled] moneys fund"). grade, exceeded 35; Sand, Siffert, Loughlin, Reiss, Modern Jury Instructions ¶53.03, 53-55 considered type 2113(b).").

Category: 0