Descamps v. United States
Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (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). In an 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." 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."
| Descamps v. United States | |
|---|---|
Supreme Court of the United States | |
| Argued January 7, 2013 Decided June 20, 2013 | |
| Full case name | Matthew Robert Descamps, Petitioner v. United States Attorney- Dan B. Johnson, Spokane, Washington. |
| Docket no. | 11-9540 |
| Citations | 570 U.S. 254 (more) 133 S. Ct. 2276; 186 L. Ed. 2d 438; 2013 U.S. LEXIS 4698, 81 U.S.L.W. 4490 |
| 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) |
| Dissent | Alito |
| Laws applied | |
| Armed Career Criminal Act | |
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.