Legal Document

446 U.S. 398 100 Supreme Court Reporter 1747 64 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 381 Michael M. BUSIC, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. Anthony LaROCCA, Jr., Petitioner, versus UNITED Nos. 78-6020, 78-6029. Argued Feb. 27, 1980. Decided May 19, Syllabus * Upon their joint trial in Federal District Court, petitioners were convicted of, inter alia, armed assault on federal officers petitioner LaRocca as the actual triggerman and Busic an aider abettor thus derivatively a principal under 18 Code KF62 § 2—in violation of 111, which makes it unlawful to officer provides for enhanced punishment when assaulter "uses" deadly weapon. In addition, was using, carrying, firearm commission assault, 924(c), authorizes imposition penalties defendant who (§ 924(c)(1)) or "carries" 924(c)(2)) while committing felony. Each petitioner's sentence included 5 years possession firearms charges, 20 924(c) violations. The Appeals ultimately held that, LaRocca's could not be both 111 924(c)(1) "using" firearm, he sentenced either at Government's election, but since charge against alleged that "used" rather "carried" one, his valid. Held : Section may applied uses course felony is proscribed by statute itself enhancement if dangerous weapon used. received such only provision defining committed. Pp. 403-411. (a) This result supported Simpson States, 435 6, 98 909, 55 70, also legislative history canons statutory construction ambiguity concerning ambit criminal statutes should resolved favor lenity, more specific (18 here) will given precedence over general one 924(c)), even if, here, enacted later. To extent this lead irrational sentencing patterns some less severe crimes are punished than other crimes, Congress, must take corrective action. 403-410. (b) holding clear using gun officers, applies Busic's case. Nor can sustained arguing person carries 924(c)(2) because does apply those carry do use weapons. fact being Through combination 2, found guilty agents. 410-411. 3rd Cir., 587 Reporter, 2nd 577, reversed remanded. Gerald Goldman, Washington, D. C., Busic. Samuel Judge Reich, Pittsburgh, Pa., LaRocca. Mark I. Levy, States. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered opinion Court. 1 Title question decision these cases whether section We hold committed 2 Petitioners LaRocca, tried together multicount indictment charging drug, firearms, offenses flowing from narcotics conspiracy attempt rob undercover agent. evidence showed 1976 two arranged drug buy with agent Drug Enforcement Administration supply $30,000 cash. When arrived money, attempted him gunpoint. signalled reinforcements, began close fired several shots them. No hit agents succeeded disarming arresting arrested seized carrying belt had drawn. Additional weapons pair's automobile.1 3 A jury Western Pennsylvania possession-of-firearms counts,2 counts 111—LaRocca abettor, 2. 924(c)(1), 924(c)(2).3 total 30 years, resulted concurrent sentences product terms imposed 4 defendants appealed, contending, among things, they consecutively assaulting defined 1114 connection crime provided 924(c).5 announced before v.United 70 (1978), decided, Third Circuit concluded case single violated Double Jeopardy Clause Fifth Amendment required proof identical elements. 583-584 (1978). Accordingly, remanded resentencing election. Since used 924(c)(1)), hecarried 924(c)(2)), no like infirmity invalidated conviction sentence. its view, charges did require same elements hence merge former established merely showing aided abetted latter additional unlawfully carried gun. F.2d, 584. Following Court's supra, granted petition rehearing vacated double jeopardy regard grounds there reason reach constitutional question. 587-589. Thereafter, proceeded matter arrive nearly conclusion namely, alter certiorari, 442 916, 99 2835, 61 282 (1979), now reverse 924(c). II 6 turn first poses most directly key intent. Our starting point, parties, Simpson, supra. There we considered relationship between bank robbery statute, 2113, which, issue predates own where weapon.6 Relying upon applicable construction, Congress cannot understood have intended has been robbing 2113(d). parties instant agree clearly prohibits similarly 111. But Government contends question—that read find inapplicable prosecution proceeds predicate Such reading, asserts, facts presented Simpson,7 language describe "holding,"8 likely inferences drawn what would wanted focussed precise problem,9 asserted irrationality consequences flow present cases.10 7 disagree. our Simpson's reasoning support alone—that simply permissible contains provision. principles underlying doctrine stare decisis —principles particularly apposite construction—but relevant construction. persuaded us depends implausible congressional And hypothesized curious seemingly unreasonable comparative sentences, suffices say unreasonableness flows decision, wrote If action needed, provide it. "It speculate, much act, altered stance events anticipated." TVA Hill, 437 153, 185, 2279, 2297, 57 117 8 strands. It begins, indeed must, text By terms, tells nothing about way mesh new scheme analogous provisions pre-existing crimes. Moreover, noted, U.S., 13, S.Ct., 913, n. 7, offered amendment House floor Representative Poff, 114 Cong.Rec. 22231 (1968), passed day. Id., 22248. committee reports hearings normally aid situations exist, forced consequence search clues intent sparse pages debate make up history. crucial material purposes following observation Poff: 9 "For sake history, noted my substitute title 18, sections 112, 113 already define officials, 2113 2114 robberies mail banks, 2231 assaults process servers chapter 44 defines felonies." 22232. 10 pointed out "[t]his statement probative judgment purpose served whenever substantive offense weapon." 913. Poff's remarks ones touching adopted, therefore reasonable assume represent understanding Congressmen voted proposal.11 11 Reliance consistent position taken Department 1971 advised prosecutors proceed " 'increased offense.' supra 16, 915, quoting 19 U.S.Attys. Bull. Number 3, Page 63 (U.S. Dept. Justice, 1971). view fully tools relied Simpson. oft-cited rule 'ambiguity lenity.' Bass, 404 336, 347, 92 515, 522, 488 (1971), Rewis 401 808, 812, 91 1056, 1059, 28 493 (1971). second principle regardless temporal sequence. Preiser Rodriguez, 411 475, 489-490, 93 1827, 1836, 36 439 (1973). counseled enhancement. They "an outgrowth reluctance increase multiply punishments absent definite directive." 15-16, 914. Here play similar role, help confirm all situation. 12 seeks minimize force urging (1) lenity properly called into (2) relates permit any each contention flawed. As first, claim exists stand up. Plainly fails address pertinent cases—whether containing provisions, alternative felonies, (3) duplicative task ascertain best approach mind. reference appropriate materials, so. 13 contention—that viewed statute—is facially unpersuasive12 consequences. Indeed, correct conclude impliedly repealed provisions. Yet shred suggest intended. inconsistent Simpson13 event give wants prosecutor choose 14 addition contesting specific-versus-general arguments, reading materials Poff amendment—including himself—were meting stiff followed commitment. argument overdrawn. place, think desire deal severely abuses. understand it, reads diminished penalty use, enhance hilt. patently too failed hilt—it set maximum well variety limits available punishment. Thus, deter abuses, unbounded. here locate boundaries, inquiry advanced assertion boundaries. 15 More specifically, accommodation obviously necessary. others severe,14 priority certain circumstances might achieved another priority. effect argues colleagues foreseen problem eschewed instead rested complete discretion prosecutor. dispute permitting freedom choice greater said number constructions including rejected rejecting exposes stark unidimensional quality calculus attempts construe basis assumption enacting Congress' sole objective possible. 16 authorized forth partial response ones.15 interpretation led differences treatment intuitively reasonable. consequence, presence shake confidence broadly, old apparently chosen Congress. On contrary, "in system commitment separation powers fundamental pre-empt judicially decreeing accords 'commonsense public weal.' 195, 2302. III 17 What far disposes making officers. fallback position. Even violate doing so goes, urges, whatever aiding abetting central flaw agents.16 gun, words, became law. amounts shot fire. Similarly, suggest, shooting results wholly implausible. Part II, heads, impute unlikely intention punish separate offense, create situation aiders abettors often culpable whom abet.17 decline produce ungainly result. seems equally here—Busic's vicarious subject duly prosecuted pursuant case, neither subsection available.18 These proceedings opinion.19 So ordered. 21 BLACKMUN, THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, concurring. 22 & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions join opinion, leads charged violative firearm. 23 made clear, however, Appeals' initial cases, discussed ante, 401-402, reflects confusion existed lower courts meaning recent pronouncements respecting multiple aspect Clause. See Whalen 445 684, 697-698, 1432, 1440-1442, 715 (1980) (BLACKMUN, J., concurring judgment). intend 581-582, 3. course, revealed error holding. went context, prevented so, least cases. id., 582-584. subscribe write separately state, once again, belief proceeding, "the constitutionally different Legislative Branch imposed." 698, 1441 24 STEWART, STEVENS dissenting. 25 Under "[w]hoever—(1) commit [federal] . ., during felony," term imprisonment involved used, authorize transaction today concludes enhancement, though limitation 26 part Gun Control Act 1968, Public Law 90-618, 82 Statutes-at-Large 1213. That legislation, year Robert Kennedy Martin Luther King, assassinated, addressed largely "increasing rate lawlessness growing violent crime." H.R.Rep. 1577, 90th Cong., Sess., U.S.Code Cong. Admin.News Pages 4410, 4412. primary explained sponsor, "persuade man tempted leave home." (1968). Towards end, prison term, felony, nor offender, subsequent offender. further run concurrently repeat offenders, receive probation suspended 27 Before enactment earlier Congresses especially serious officer, robbery, §§ 2113(a), (d). Those seven five Neither requires mandatory minimum increased recidivists. substantial "[f]or [bill] 22232 29 punishment, obtain itself. Although finds passages literal floor, itself, fair appraisal decided [to punishments] 2113(d) 924(c)." 915 (emphasis added). decide question, unambiguous, provides, "[w]hoever felony." (Emphasis added.) 31 sure, stated bill "[was] apply" felonies contain easily directed invoked previously provision—as lieu 32 "pyramid" transaction. quite proposition provision—with sanctions offenders stiffer recidivists—to serve source singled warranting special lesser sanction authorized. light expressed concerns 1968 particular, mean precisely says, 33 sum, both. 34 For foregoing reasons, dissent.* 35 REHNQUIST, dissented continue believe wrongly decided. Now, then, am amazed ability "tells crimes," 405, "any felony" shall years' ." persuasive rehash unwarranted reliance remark labels rule," see 409, 14, labeled amendment" (albeit proponent). 37 Were demonstrably acquiesce interest decisis. based unstated degree raised prospect jeopardy" "precisely factual showing" necessary 11, 912. treated constitutionality allow cumulative insisting point "[b]efore examination determine permissible, engaged." 11-12, dissent, undercurrents suggested "gauzy" "metaphysic[al]." 915. 38 Recently, unanimously 's premise. (1980), six Members impose proceeding completely controlled jeopardy. 688-689, 1436; 697-698 concurring). Three myself, argued permissibility whatsoever. 696, 1440 (WHITE, judgment); 701-707, 1443-1446 (REHNQUIST, joined BURGER, C. dissenting). having disposed underpinnings, reconsider not, fact, know besides absolutely face, looked "ambiguity," then manner totally odds statute's plain wording. Because repudiated premise, overrule vacate judgments below, remand reconsideration Appeals. syllabus constitutes prepared convenience reader. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 321, 337, 282, 287, 50 L.Ed. 499. recited Circuit. 579-580 violations 841(a)(1), 843(b), 846. involving 5861(c), 5861(d), 5871, 922(h) 924(a). named five. three U.S.C.App. 1202(a)(1). reproduced App. 5-15. below convictions validity superimposed validly grounded counts. contention, concluding come end assault. 584, 5, 588, press accordingly treat felonies. follows: "Whoever forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, interferes designated engaged account performance official duties, fined $5,000 imprisoned "Whoever, acts weapon, $10,000 ten both." Among persons employees Administration. provides: "Whoever— "(1) court "(2) States[,] "shall, years. subsection, twenty-five and, notwithstanding law, suspend probationary sentence, purposes, analogous. Therefore, section's well. 9, 911. final paragraph part: "Accordingly, wake assassinations Senator KF105 F3 Rev. Jr. major steps prevent argued, pre-empted stringent example, notes breaks Post Office 2115, provision, extra shoot lock off. contrast, draws fires clause precedence. clause, 2113(d), permits 2113(a). incremental robber opposed robber. receives conference Committee chose version Senate proposal according 27142 permitted contained clause. H.R.Conf.Rep.No.1956, 31-32 4410. recognize, points out, differed respects well; insofar direction chain supports statement. fairly broad. refers "firearms," 921(a)(3) (4) include bombs, grenades, rockets, mines, devices guns. disposition remand, approved affirmed 2113(d)—a improper specificity argument. offender otherwise forceful (25 2113(a)), nonviolent 2113(b)) goods worth $100 year) less. 2114, referred cost custody property ruling pre-emptive actually decreasing others. leaves place-it existing smaller larger. One examples described 10, unlikeliness hypothetical compares possibility genuinely troubling exaggerated. commits aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces procures commission, punishable principal." facts, Busic—the abettor—to 111—while LaRocca—the triggerman—could latter. theory assumes Busic, abettor. violating short, drew twice faced comrade. logic anything peculiar "as principal," words say. vicariously liable "regardless incapable abetted." S.Rep. 1020, 82d 1st (1951) Admin.Serv. 1951, 2578, 2583. Another inevitably exist prosecuting punishing individual abetting. Phrased differently, furtherance appears incongruous time crime. conditional plea This, resentence statute. incorrect context reluctant without benefit court's views. express particular permissible. 924(c)(2). principal" offense; 410-411, unpersuaded therefore,

Classification Label: 0