Document: 522 U.S. 252118 S.Ct. 673139 L.Ed.2d 686 George G. ROGERS, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. No. 96-1279. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Nov. 5, 1997. Decided Jan. 14, 1998. Syllabus * Petitioner was charged with knowing possession an unregistered and unserialized firearm in violation 26 U.S.C. §5861(d) (i) as a result discovery silencer his truck. A is included within meaning "firearm'' under §5845(a)(7). repeatedly admitted during arrest trial that he knew item found truck fact silencer. The District denied petitioner's request for instruction defined Government's burden establishing "knowing possession'' proof had willfully consciously possessed to be "firearm.'' convicted. Under Staples v. States, 511 600, 114 1793, 128 608, decided after this case submitted jury, mens rea element requires Government prove defendant characteristics brought it statutory definition firearm. Eleventh Circuit affirmed conviction because omission related by petitioner and, light repeated admissions, error harmless beyond reasonable doubt. Held: writ certiorari dismissed improvidently granted. Reported below: 94 F.3d 1519 (C.A.11 1996). Justice STEVENS, joined THOMAS, GINSBURG, BREYER, concluded question on which granted certiorari-whether failure instruct offense where, at trial, element-is not fairly presented record, that, accordingly, must Circuit's conclusion denial requested effectively omitted essential §5861 offenses unwarranted two reasons. First, tendered ambiguous. It might have been interpreted require §5845(a)(7), merely certain offending characteristics. Second, more important, fair reading instructions actually given did jury find judge first explained statute include then instructed could guilty without doubt "knowingly "firearm,' above.'' Since term "defined above'' silencer, required determine telling need gun "was "firearm' law registered'' best read explaining registration Freed, 401 601, 91 1112, 28 356, entitled such instruction. Pp. ___-___. O'CONNOR sufficient dismiss were ambiguous whether asked find, As result, least unclear intended address squarely presented. J., announced decision delivered opinion, JJ., joined. O'CONNOR, filed opinion concurring SCALIA, KENNEDY, dissenting REHNQUIST, C.J., SOUTER, Javier H. Rubinstein, petitioner. Jonathan E. Nuechterlein, Washington, DC, respondent. STEVENS BREYER join. 1 We certiorari, 520 ----, 117 1841, 137 1046 (1997), decide district court's element. Because we 2 described "a 9'' '' silencer,'' App. 6-7, (i).1 Although claimed know canvas bag behind driver's seat pickup when arrested, candidly acknowledged He admission questioning police testimony trial; moreover, confirmed lawyer argument jury. 3 our 608 (1994), firearm.2 not, however, necessary unlawful, or unregistered. 356 (1971); see Staples, U.S., 609, S.Ct., 1799. Thus, case, constituted evidence satisfy offenses. nevertheless submits unconstitutional because, from defining offense, there has no finding each elements proved Relying SCALIA's judgment Carella California, 491 263, 267, 109 2419, 2421-2422, 105 218 (1989), contends """the guilt may spelt out but according procedure standards appropriate criminal trials.''''' Brief 20-21 (quoting Carella, 269, 2422 (in turn quoting Bollenbach 326 607, 614, 66 402, 406, 90 L.Ed. 350 (1946))). 4 Appeals rejected conviction. reasoned give can if "omission crime any admitted,''3 unequivocal admissions made clear In view submission relies Due Process Clause Fifth Amendment Sixth right cases like re Winship, 397 358, 1068, 25 368 (1970), Sullivan Louisiana, 508 275, 113 2078, 124 182 (1993), important constitutional question. Given tradition avoiding unnecessary premature adjudication questions, see, e.g., New York City Transit Authority Beazer, 440 568, 582-583, 99 1355, 1364, 59 587 (1979), consider failed adequate offense. II 5 Count indictment "knowingly'' firearm, properly identified serial number. ""knowing possession''' "the items "firearms.''' 12. Apparently assuming holding instruction, judge's "effectively §5861(d).'' 1519, 1524 For reasons, believe assumption unwarranted. 6 federal statute, greater importance, 7 objections originally proposed 2, complained third there, being knowledge knowing.'' 78. response, inserted word between words "Defendant'' "possessed'' rea.4 instructing Defendant knowingly Id., 104. silencer.5 comparable 3.6 8 also called attention told registered.'' Ibid. jurors previously they 9 assume would explicit these prior submitting However, are satisfied inform silencer.7 therefore conclude record does present address. Accordingly, 10 so ordered. 11 whom SCALIA joins, result. 12 plurality points out, issue law, ought cleanly my view, "knew ante, __. case-whether reason, I concur dismissal share plurality's concern, __, n. 7, courts should structure their implicating way prevents possible interpretation Kennedy dissent. 13 THE CHIEF JUSTICE SOUTER join, dissenting. 14 colloquy defense counsel court about show object See, 84-87. indicates consistent then-governing precedent, 1523, (1996), ruled part case. 15 instructions, modifies follows it, viz., "possessed,'' rather than instruction's further reference other circumstances one argue ambiguous, here agreed defendant's understanding it. jury: "What charged, above, [it] registered National Firearms Registration Transfer Record.'' understood court, ibid., counsel, Solicitor General, 12, Appeals, F.3d, device 16 proceeds, even satisfactory implementation later-announced Staples. And, though end nothing order dismissed, its extensive discussion suggests effect all convictions based form affirmed. This substantive point; neither briefed nor argued; contrary common-sense instruction; tends diminish force itself. 17 If wishes persist full addressing merits conviction, mask determination supporting dismissal. things stand, brings little credit us get rid strained novel instruction-a quite unsupportable record-after expended Court's resources different law. petitioner, whose now stands what practical purposes affirmance theory suggested until now, will hard put understand cavalier refusal arguments. 18 dissent dismissing syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. See Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 321, 337, 282, 287, 50 499. Section 5861 provides " [i]t shall unlawful person . (d) receive possess him Record; number chapter.'' 5845(a) [t]he means (7) (as section 921 title 18, Code).'' separate count machinegun §922(o). His reversed appeal conceded establish modified act fully automatic weapon. 1523 Reversal id., 602, 1795 (Government weapon machinegun''); 604, 1796 (" [Section] 5861(d) Act''); 1799 features make ''); 619, 1804 ("Thus, obtain AR-15 scope 620, (Congress intend "to outlaws owners who wholly ignorant weapons''). 1526. instructional necessarily predicate facts closely rational those element.'' COURT: You want me insert element, don't care. "MR. SALANTRIE: Sure. That work. "THE Okay.'' 78-79. KENNEDY argues "novel instruction,'' post, differs counsel. incorrect. point 4, supra, responded counsel's objection inserting "knowingly.'' "colloquy,'' concerning supports interpretation. "fair record,'' reveals following: begins arguing 84. After some discussion, referencing Anderson, 885 F.2d 1248 (C.A.5 1989) (en banc), shifts contend 86. responds follows: you'll just last sentence [of instruction] you're adequately protected, sir. seems second mutually exclusive. One says it's is. quotes. Your client gotten stand testified instantly take there. didn't say 87 (emphasis added). explicitly satisfying requirement continually shifted registered, "required firearm.'' Ultimately, argued sentence''-pertaining requirement-was inconsistent 105. footnote, noted although reasoning only involved §5861(d), logically applied equally §5861(i). 1524, 8. Of course, bag, dangerous complied Our disposition having wise explain carefully used foreclose possibility interpret

Category: 8