Descamps v. United States
Descamps v. United States | |
---|---|
| |
Argued January 7, 2013 Decided June 20, 2013 | |
Full case name | Matthew Robert Descamps, Petitioner v. United States |
Docket nos. | 11-9540 |
Citations | |
Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
Holding | |
Under the Armed Career Criminal Act, judges may not look at facts associated with a crime (the "modified categorical approach") when criminal statutes contain a single, indivisible set of elements | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Kagan, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor |
Concurrence | Kennedy |
Concurrence | Thomas (in judgment only) |
Dissent | Alito |
Laws applied | |
Armed Career Criminal Act |
Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. ___ (2013), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified standards for evaluating potential prior offenses under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).[1] In a 8–1 decision written by Justice Elena Kagan, the Supreme Court held that judges may only look at the statutory elements of a crime, rather than the facts associated with that particular crime, "when the crime of which the defendant was convicted has a single, indivisible set of elements."[2] In his review of the case for SCOTUSblog, Daniel Richman opined that following the Court's decision, "[w]hether or not a prior conviction is going to 'count' will have to be determined as mechanically as possible."[3]
See also
- Taylor v. United States
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 570
- 2012 term United States Supreme Court opinions of Elena Kagan
References
- ↑ Descamps v. United States, No. 11-9540, 570 U.S. ___, slip op. at 1 (2013).
- ↑ Descamps, slip op. at 2.
- ↑ Daniel Richman, Opinion analysis: When is a burglary not a burglary?, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 20, 2013).
External links
This article is issued from
Wikipedia.
The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike.
Additional terms may apply for the media files.