Document: 526 U.S. 275119 S.Ct. 1239143 L.Ed.2d 388 UNITED STATES v. RODRIGUEZ-MORENO(97-1139)121 F.3d 841, reversed. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATES119 No. 97 1139 STATES, PETITIONER JACINTO RODRIGUEZ-MORENO ON WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS FOR THIRD CIRCUIT [March 30, 1999] Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This case presents question whether venue in a prosecution for using or carrying firearm "during and relation to any crime violence," violation 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), is proper district where violence was committed, even if used carried only single district. 2 * During drug transaction that took place Houston, Texas, New York dealer stole 30 kilograms Texas distributor's cocaine. The distributor hired respondent, Jacinto Rodriguez-Moreno, others find hold captive middleman transaction, Ephrain Avendano, during search. In pursuit dealer, his henchmen drove from Jersey with Avendano tow. group Avendano's apartment as base their operations few days. They soon moved house then Maryland, taking them. 3 Shortly after respondent arrived at Maryland house, owner home passed around .357 magnum revolver possession pistol. As it became clear efforts would not bear fruit, told employer he thought they should kill end search dealer. He put gun back neck but, urging cohorts, did shoot. eventually escaped through door ran neighboring house. neighbors called police, who arrested along rest kidnapers. police also seized magnum, on which later found respondent's fingerprint. 4 Rodriguez-Moreno codefendants were tried jointly United States District Court Jersey. Respondent charged with, inter alia, conspiring kidnap kidnaping 924(c)(1). At conclusion Government's case, dismiss §924(c)(1) count lack venue. argued Government had proved actually gun. denied motion, App. 54, jury guilty counts charge well. sentenced 87 months' imprisonment charges, given mandatory consecutive term 60 committing offense. 5 On 2-to-1 vote, Appeals Third Circuit reversed conviction. Palma-Ruedas, 121 841 (1997). A majority panel applied what "verb test" §924(c)(1), determined statute committed defendant "uses" "carries" firearm. Id., 849. Accordingly, concluded improper though there Avendano. dissenting judge majority's test relied too much "on grammatical arcana," id., 865, approach "look substance statutes question," ibid. view, an essential element course conduct Congress sought criminalize enacting therefore, "venue under [that] lies defe ndant underlying violence." 863. petitioned review ground Circuit's holding conflict decision Fifth Circuit, Pomranz, 43 156 (1995). We granted certiorari, 524 ___ (1998), now reverse. II 6 Article III Constitution requires "[t]he Trial all Crimes shall be held State said have been committed." Art. III, §2, cl. 3. Its command reinforced by Sixth Amendment's requirement "[i]n criminal prosecutions, accused enjoy right speedy public trial, impartial wherein committed," echoed Rule Federal Rules Criminal Procedure ("prosecution offense committed"). 7 we confirmed just last Term, " 'locus delicti [of offense] must nature alleged location act acts constituting it.' Cabrales, 1, (1998) (quoting Anderson, 328 699, 703 (1946)).1 performing this inquiry, court initially identify (the crime) discern commission acts.2 See supra, 7; Travis States, 364 631, 635 637 (1961); Cores, 356 405, 408 409 (1958); 706. 8 time tried, 924(c)(1) provided: 9 "Whoever, may prosecuted uses carries firearm, shall, addition punishment provided such five years ." 10 explained above, looked verbs determine substantive But never before held, decline do so here, are sole consideration identifying constitutes While certainly has value interpretative tool, cannot rigidly, exclusion other relevant statutory language. unduly limits inquiry into thereby creates danger certain prohibited will missed. 11 our overlooked Section prohibits [a defendant] States." That embedded prepositional phrase expressed does dissuade us concluding defendant's violent elements. To prove required show necessary subject (a violence) to" sum, interpret contain two distinct elements "using carrying" ing.4 12 Respondent, however, argues purposes "the kidnapping completely irrelevant crime, because use carry crime." Brief 12. words one amicus, "point-in-time" coincide. National Association Defense Lawyers Amicus Curiae 11. disagree. Several Circuits kidnaping, defined 1201 (1994 ed. Supp. III), unitary see Seals, 130 451, 461 462 (CADC 1997); Denny-Shaffer, 999, 1018 1019 (CA10 1993); Godinez, 998 F.2d 471, 473 (CA7 Garcia, 854 340, 343 344 (CA9 1988), agree conclusion. once begun, until victim free. It make sense, then, speak discrete geograph ic fragments. criminalized violence; doing so, proscribed both constitute crime. matter revolver, concedes, begun continued York, Jersey, Maryland. define when continuing violence. 13 Lombardo, 241 73 (1916), "where consists parts different localities whole part can done." 77; cf. Hyde 225 347, 367 (1912) (venue against co-conspirator out overt no evidence ever entered conspiracy formed there). attached, places place, appropriate (Congress offenses "in continued, completed," 3237(a).) Where violence, properly could 14 15 brought. judgment therefore 16 ordered. Notes 17 1. When first announced U.S., 703, comparing §11 Selective Training Service Act 1940, 54 Stat. 894, "not indicate [it] considered be," explicit respect Title like Act, express provision. 2. permissibly based upon effects than performs 17. Because concerns locus delicti, assertion correct. 19 recently amended, Pub. L. 105 386, 112 3469, but amendment way analysis case. 20 4. By comparison, Term money laundering, 1956(a)(1)(B)(ii) 1957, Missouri, laundered proceeds unlawfully generated, rather, Florida, laundering transactions occurred. interpreted issue, proscribe anterior yielded funds allegedly laundered." 7. existence criminally generated circumstance activity occurred 'after fact' completed others." Ibid. Here, contrast, language, critical Scalia, J., 21 22 23 24 whom Stevens joins, dissenting. 25 I deciding provision Constitution, vicinage Amendment, look it." Ante, turn quoting (1946)) (internal quotation marks omitted). disagree Court, "committed" either commits predicate seems me unmistakably text law engages making up 26 offense, read: 27 trafficking years." 28 "during" (and to) provisions Code defining particular already punish except carriage gun; itself criminalizes punishes makes more dangerous. Cf. Muscarello 125, 132 (1998). simple concept, embodied straightforward text. answer need ask Since lie there. 29 relies 73, 77 proposition 'where done.' fallacy reliance consist "distinct" occur localities. bound inseparably together word "during." being used, occurring well, vice versa. quite simply reads difference between steal cookie eat (which stolen, eaten) while robbing bakery ingestive theft occurred). believes its justified invokes providing "any another, district, inquired completed." 3237(a). disallow suggests, convert 6. so. contend or, matter, gun, point time. Each extend over protracted period, many places. violated long as, where, simultaneously. means. Thus, here throughout those States. was, 31 Finally, contends focusing "use carry" "difficult square" cases each Reply (citing 862 863 (CA3 1997) (Alito, concurring part) (case below)). See, e.g., 59 1323, 1328 1334 (CADC) (en banc), cert. denied, 516 999 (1995); Taylor, 986, 992 994 (CA6 1994); Lindsay, 985 666, 672 676 (CA2), 510 832 (1993). odd argument make, since disagreed cases, see, 1328; 674, succeeded persuading contrary, Camps, 32 102, 106 109 (CA4 1994), 513 1158 Lucas, 932 1210, 1222 (CA8), 502 869 (1991). dispute nothing here. entire essence offense." 9. assuredly if, whatever reason, effect limiting per effectively observed rather ignored. short defendant, constitutional "committed," Const., 3; Amdt. 6, kidnaping. If state decide it, departed further meaning language government supposed rule restrained) written word.

Category: 8