Document: UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. RANDY EDWARD HAYES No. 07-608. Supreme Court of United States. Argued November 10, 2008. Decided February 24, 2009. JUSTICE GINSBURG delivered the opinion Court.[*] The federal Gun Control Act 1968, 18 U.S. C. §921 et seq., has long prohibited possession a firearm by any person convicted felony. In 1996, Congress extended prohibition to include persons "a misdemeanor crime domestic violence." §922(g)(9). definition "misdemeanor violence," contained in §921(a)(33)(A), is at issue this case. Does that term cover battery whenever battered victim was fact offender's spouse (or other relation specified §921(a)(33)(A))? Or, trigger ban, must predicate identify as an element relationship between aggressor and victim? We hold relationship, although it be established beyond reasonable doubt §922(g)(9) firearms prosecution, need not defining offense. I 2004, law enforcement officers Marion County, West Virginia, came home Randy Edward Hayes response 911 call reporting violence. consented search his home, discovered rifle. Further investigation revealed had recently possessed several well. Based on evidence, grand jury returned indictment 2005, charging Hayes, under §§922(g)(9) 924(a)(2), with three counts possessing after having been identified Hayes's violence 1994 conviction for violation Virginia law.[1] battery, alleged, then-wife a who "shared child common" "who cohabitating . him spouse." App. 3.[2] Asserting did qualify offense §922(g)(9), moved dismiss indictment. Section 922(g)(9), maintained, applies only previously victim. statute which he 1994, observed, generic proscription, designating offender States District Northern rejected argument denied motion 377 F. Supp. 2d 540, 541-542 (2005). then entered conditional guilty plea appealed. 2-to-1 decision, Appeals Fourth Circuit reversed. A offense, held, "have victim." 482 F.3d 749, 751 (2007). so ruling, created split itself nine Courts published opinions deciding same question.[3] According those courts, does require defendant's have granted certiorari, 552 U. S. ___ (2008), resolve conflict. II 922(g)(9) makes "unlawful court [to] possess or affecting commerce, ammunition." 921(a)(33)(A) defines violence" follows: "[T]he `misdemeanor violence' means that "(i) Federal, State, Tribal law; "(ii) has, element, use attempted physical force, threatened deadly weapon, committed current former spouse, parent, guardian victim, whom shares common, cohabitated guardian, similarly situated victim" (footnotes omitted). This definition, all agree, imposes two requirements: First, have, "as weapon." Second, "committed by" question here whether language §921(a)(33)(A) calls further limitation: Must describing include, discrete existence line large majority Appeals, we conclude predicate-offense specificity. Instead, suffices Government charge prove prior was, fact, "an defendant against note initial matter uses word "element" singular, suggests intended describe one required element. Immediately following "element," §921(a)(33)(A)(ii) refers force (undoubtedly element) thereafter e.g., spouse. manner acts, are "conceptually distinct attributes." Meade, 175 215, 218 (CA1 1999).[4] Had meant make latter well likely would used plural "elements," done offense-defining provisions. See, §3559(c)(2)(A) ("[T]he `assault intent commit rape' its elements engaging contact another using brandishing weapon aggravated sexual abuse abuse."). Cf. Black's Law Dictionary 559 (8th ed. 2004) (defining "[a] constituent part claim proved succeed ").[5] Treating also awkward syntax. It requires reader regard "the weapon" expression modified relative clause by." ordinary usage, however, say "commit[s]" "use." more natural "offense." Belless, 338 1063, 1066 (CA9 2003) ("One can `commit' but `force' `use.'"). reaching conclusion renders both necessary qualifying relied textual arguments. noted (ii) separated from (i) break semicolon; contrast, components (ii)force relationshipare joined unbroken flow. See F.3d, 753. placed phrase own clause, set off semicolon break, lawmakers might better conveyed modifies "offense" "use" "element." Congress' less-than-meticulous drafting, hardly shows legislators exclude §922(g)(9)'s abusers assault As structured, addressing meaning "misdemeanor" and, turn, (ii), "crime Because involves joining these features together sense even if no design confine laws id., 761 (Williams, J., dissenting). Barnes, 295 1354, 1358-1360, 1361 (CADC 2002) ("The somewhat awkwardly included `committed by' subpart (instead adding (iii)) significant view unnatural reading result were construed modify `use force.'"). related statutory provision, 25 §2803(3)(C), indicates ascribe substantive significance placement breaks semicolons §921(a)(33)(A). 2006, amended §921(a)(33)(A)(i) misdemeanors "[t]ribal law" offenses. companion measure, simultaneously enacted employs use-of-force domestic-relationship virtually identical earlier §921(a)(33)(A)(i), except §2803(3)(C) break. 2803(3)(C) authorizes agents "make arrest without warrant Indian country if" parent ." At time uniformly agreed limit offenses texts specifying elements. presumably knew how construed, bear meaning. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. Dabit, 547 71, 85-86 (2006) ("[W]hen `judicial interpretations settled existing repetition new indicates, general matter, incorporate judicial well.'" (quoting Bragdon Abbott, 524 624, 645 (1998))). Relying spacing punctuation hem while contain similar limitation, create disjunction provisions could intended. second justification construction invoked "rule last antecedent," limiting should ordinarily read modifying noun immediately follows." Barnhart Thomas, 540 20, 26 (2003). words follow language, therefore phrase, 753-755. rule antecedent, "is absolute assuredly overcome indicia meaning." Barnhart, S., 26.[6] Applying antecedent us accept unlikely premises: employed singular encompass concepts, adopted "commi[t]" supra, 5-6. Moreover, dissent acknowledges, post, 4, last-antecedent render "committed" superfluous: referring simply Tr. Oral Arg. 29. "Committed" retains operative Most sensibly read, then, (1) "has, [of force]," (2) To obtain way. But established, denominated offense.[7] III Practical considerations strongly support our §921(a)(33)(A)'s language. Existing felon-in-possession laws, recognized, keeping out hands abusers, because "many people engage serious spousal ultimately charged felonies." 142 Cong. Rec. 22985 (1996) (statement Sen. Lautenberg). By extending crime[s] proponents sought "close dangerous loophole." Id., 22986. Construing abuser (one designate offense) frustrate manifest purpose. Firearms strife potentially combination nationwide. Brief Brady Center Prevent Violence al. Amici Curiae 8-15; National Network End Domestic 2-8. Yet, interpreted Circuit, dead letter" some two-thirds very moment enactment. 762 about one-third criminal statutes specifically proscribed 23, n. 8.[8] Even States, (and are) routinely prosecuted generally applicable laws. 19. And designated Yet defined "misdemeanor[s] Federal law." §921(a)(33)(A)(i). Given paucity state targeting violence, find highly improbable extend ban relatively few rendering 3d, 1364 (rejecting "Congress remedied disparitybetween felony convictionswhile creating disparity among sometimes, within) states").[9] measure became initially may broadly remedial purpose, see Respondent 28-29, text proposal, maintains, revised narrowed remained congressional hopper. compromise reflected gained passage, argues, restricted legislation denominating changes identifies, do corroborate argument. revise spell requirement. proposed described domestic-violence 5840. final version replaced unelaborated apparently last-minute insertion help explain syntactical awkwardness evince intention convert into Indeed, floor statement discussing Senator Frank Lautenberg, sponsor observed often offense: "[C]onvictions violence-related crimes crimes, such assault, explicitly Therefore, will always possible authorities determine face someone's record particular 26675. remarks single "not controlling," Consumer Product Safety Comm'n GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 102, 118 (1980), but, recognizes, legislative otherwise "absolutely silent." 32, 35. contains suggestion violated IV lenity, contends, provides additional reason construe apply specify crime. touchstone lenity ambiguity." Bifulco 381, 387 (1980) (internal quotation marks "only when, consulting traditional canons construction, left ambiguous statute." Shabani, 513 17 (1994). 921(a)(33)(A)'s acknowledge, model careful drafter's art. 1356. neither "grievous[ly] ambigu[ous]." Huddleston 415 814, 831 (1974). text, context, what little there drafting history point direction: designates * For reasons stated, judgment reversed, case remanded proceedings consistent opinion. ordered. CHIEF ROBERTS, SCALIA joins, dissenting. firearm. before includes provides: (Footnote omitted.) opening subparagraph (A), leapfrogging outset (ii). That statute. Individuals containing reference subject prosecution held contrary preceding phrase: §921(a)(33)(A); 753-754 (CA4 2007). Read way, seems most right bat. termso certainly parsedbut least surprising parsing terms anything 1. grammatical instructs Pursuant rule, best 754-755. usual majority's jumping over breaks, (i), semicolon, first portion reach distant ("offense"). Due floating "that" "offense," "offense counters someone force. ante, 6. True enough, encompasses variety conduct, listed separately pose objection raises (e.g., commits robbery, kidnaping). There believe decision insert rather than coming up laundry list alter relies Congress's singular. From that, infers elementthe Ante, 5. view, "elements" Ibid. Act, specifies unless context otherwise, "words importing persons, parties, things." 1 §1; Rowland California Men's Colony, Unit Advisory Council, 506 194, 200 (1993). More significantly, limited is. 1369 (Sentelle, multiple components. provision issue, "threatened concepts: (3) deadly. statutes, refer object. §16(a) use, property another"). finds "unsurprising" chosen combine mode aggression object "single, undifferentiated element." 5, 4. asserts, requirements "are readily conceptualized distinction elusive; act (use force) target (person case, latter). points interpreting superfluous. so, shown, flaws. All goes show example elegant syntax either reading. properly acknowledges reflects "less-than-meticulous drafting" "syntactical awkwardness," art." 6, 12, 13. am willing acknowledge respect my reciprocal shortcomings ambiguous. 2. brings structure statute, laid out, underlying twice qualified: first, law"; [a victim]." (footnote restructuring words. place clauseset "(iii)"to indicate way back And, noted, appears end arrive reading, ignore add "and is" define 13; 8-9. rearranging severed appear (A). Changing wording actual mean is, event, compelling attempts diminish magnitude alterations stating their setting semicolon" break." insignificant revisions; they recognized critical resolving verbal ambiguity. Castillo 530 120, 124 (2000) statute's clarifies ambiguity inherent literal language"). respectfully disagree including 3. Moving structure, recognizes "little history," 13, gamely trots is: Senate bill's sponsor, 12. Such tidbits amount much. (1980). especially true where day passed House Representatives pertinent provision. Exxon Mobil Corp. Allapattah Services, 545 546, 568 (2005); 33. nonetheless looks `absolutely silent.'" accord significance: value statements due flaws guides intent, persist indeed amplified) absence intent. "highly offense." 11. construing "frustrate purpose," guns abusers. 10 (1996)). Invoking sponsor's objective "ignores complexity problems called upon address dynamics action." Board Governors, FRS Dimension Financial Corp., 474 361, 373-374 (1986). Legislative enactments negotiations competing interests; reflect hard-fought compromises." 374. sufficient sentiment gun individual disagreed appropriate ibid. Some members individuals felonies, addressed approach entail application. Under interpretation below, easy covered ban: Simply look conviction. approach, hand, go "engage elaborate factfinding process regarding offens[e]," Taylor 495 575, 601 (1990), happened involve categorical Armed Career Criminal §924(e)(1), "looking definitions offenses, facts convictions." Taylor, 600; Shepard 544 19 (2005) (Court considered "predicate offens[e] conduct `convictions' `element[s]' crimes"). warned reaffirmed Shepard, practical difficulties potential unfairness factual daunting." 601; 20. Those concerns implicated here, given juries courts looking 4-5. Taking fair ambiguous, leans favor, purpose Government's textbook application lenity. "Because guided warning, rare policies broader clearly warranted text." Crandon 494 152, 160 (1990). cannot fairly said "clearly warrants" counterintuitive leaves arguments "rare" grounds provide "fair warning," nothing wrong punishedpossessing firearmif If anything, jail failing 50-state survey comb through obscure history. Ten years too much hinge will-o'-the-wisp pursued majority. NOTES [*] THOMAS joins Part [1] Virginia's "[A]ny [who] unlawfully intentionally insulting provoking nature causes harm person, shall misdemeanor." W. Va. Code Ann. §61-2-9(c) (Lexis 2005). [2] relevant part: "Defendant HAYES' Battery constituted because: "a. State Virginia; "b. force; "c. Defendant victim: "i. spouse; "ii. shared common; "iii. 2-3 (bold typeface deleted). [3] Heckenliable, 446 1048, 1049 (CA10 2006); 1067 2003); White Department Justice, 328 1361, 1364-1367 (CA Fed. Shelton, 325 553, 562 (CA5 Kavoukian, 315 139, 142-144 (CA2 2002); 1358-1361 Chavez, 204 1305, 1313-1314 (CA11 2000); 218-221 1999); Smith, 171 617, 619-621 (CA8 1999). [4] observes, 24-25, action (the another). Although conceive separate elements, unsurprising denominate another" single, §921(a)(33)(A)(ii)the victimare [5] contends "elements." 25. "unless otherwise," §1. On occasions when doing "necessary carry evident First Nat. Bank St. Louis Missouri, 263 640, 657 (1924). infra, 10-12, aim ban. [6] "itself flexibility antecedent]." 7. strict immediate i.e., weapon," entire "use rightly regarded implausible. 755 [7] "surprising"indeed, "most natural" to convey battering happens [8] Additional since one-half still prosecute exclusively 23-24, 9. [9] Generally, "`elaborate process,'" cf. 7, violent perpetrator's "current spouse" bore relationships perpetrator.

Category: 0