Carter v. United States, 530 U.S. 255, 4 (2000)

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

258

CARTER v. UNITED STATES

Opinion of the Court

visions "stand on their own grammatical feet" strongly suggests that Congress intended the valuation requirement to be an element of each paragraph's offense, rather than a sentencing factor of some base § 2113(b) offense. Jones v. United States, 526 U. S. 227, 234. Furthermore, the steeply higher penalties—an enhancement from a 1-year to a 10-year maximum penalty on proof of valuation exceeding $1,000— leads to the conclusion that the valuation requirement is an element of § 2113(b)'s first paragraph. See, e. g., Castillo v. United States, ante, at 127. Finally, the constitutional questions that would be raised by interpreting the valuation requirement to be a sentencing factor persuade the Court to adopt the view that the requirement is an element. See Jones, supra, at 239-252. Pp. 272-274.

185 F. 3d 863, affirmed.

Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and O'Connor, Scalia, and Kennedy, JJ., joined. Ginsburg, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, Souter, and Breyer, JJ., joined, post, p. 275.

Donald J. McCauley argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Richard Coughlin, Jeffrey T. Green, and Joseph S. Miller.

David C. Frederick argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Waxman, Assistant Attorney General Robinson, Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben, and Thomas E. Booth.*

Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court.

In Schmuck v. United States, 489 U. S. 705 (1989), we held that a defendant who requests a jury instruction on a lesser offense under Rule 31(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure must demonstrate that "the elements of the lesser offense are a subset of the elements of the charged offense." Id., at 716. This case requires us to apply this elements test to the offenses described by 18 U. S. C. §§ 2113(a) and (b)

*Joshua L. Dratel filed a brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers et al. as amici curiae urging reversal.

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: October 4, 2007