Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 785

524US2

Unit: $U98

[09-06-00 19:40:38] PAGES PGT: OPIN

740

MONGE v. CALIFORNIA

Scalia, J., dissenting

submitted to a jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt,
combined with the fact that many courts were mistaken as
to what those elements consisted of, has created considerable
juridical chaos in recent years. See, e. g., Bailey v. United
States, 516 U. S. 137 (1995); Bousley v. United States, 523
U. S. 614 (1998). Perhaps Congress should have taken a les-
son from the California Legislature, which (if my worst fears
about today’s holding are justiﬁed) may have stumbled upon
the El Dorado sought by many in vain since the beginning
of the Republic: a means of dispensing with inconvenient con-
stitutional “rights.” For now, California has used this gim-
mick only to eviscerate the Double Jeopardy Clause; it still
provides a right to notice, jury trial, and proof beyond a rea-
sonable doubt on “enhancement” allegations as a matter of
state law. But if the Court is right today, those protections
could be withdrawn tomorrow.

Earlier this Term, in Almendarez-Torres v. United States,
523 U. S. 224 (1998), I discussed our precedents bearing on
this issue and concluded that it was a grave and doubtful
question whether the Constitution permits a fact that in-
creases the maximum sentence to which a defendant is ex-
posed to be treated as a sentencing enhancement rather than
an element of a criminal offense. See id., at 260 (dissent-
ing opinion).
I stopped short of answering that question,
because I thought the doctrine of constitutional doubt re-
quired us to interpret the federal statute at issue as setting
forth an element rather than an enhancement, thereby avoid-
Ibid. Since the present case involves a
ing the problem.
state statute already authoritatively construed as an en-
hancement by the California Supreme Court, I must now
answer the constitutional question. Petitioner Monge was
convicted of the crime of using a minor to sell marijuana,
which carries a maximum possible sentence of seven years
in prison under California law. See California Health &
Safety Code Ann. § 11361(a) (West 1991). He was later sen-
tenced to eleven years in prison, however, on the basis of