In this case, a masked man entered a bank, waved a gun, and yelled at everyone to get down. He then walked behind the teller counter and started removing money from the teller stations. He grabbed bills with his left hand, holding the gun in his right. At one point, he reached over a teller to remove money from her drawer. As he was collecting the money, the gun discharged, leaving a bullet hole in the partition between two stations. The robber cursed and dashed out of the bank. Witnesses later testified that he seemed surprised that the gun had gone off. No one was hurt.
Police arrested Christopher Michael Dean and Ricardo Curtis Lopez for the crime. Both defendants were charged with conspiracy to commit a robbery affecting interstate commerce, in violation of federal law, and aiding and abetting each other in using, carrying, possessing, and discharging a firearm during an armed robbery, also in violation of federal law. At trial, Dean admitted that he had committed the robbery, and a jury found him guilty on both the robbery and firearm counts. The District Court sentenced Dean to a mandatory minimum term of 10 years in prison on the firearm count, because the firearm “discharged” during the robbery.
Dean appealed, contending that the discharge was accidental and that the sentencing enhancement in §924(c)(1)(A)(iii) requires proof that the defendant intended to discharge the firearm.
Section 924(c)(1)(A) provides:
The issue in the case was whether §924(c)(1)(A)(iii) contains a requirement that the defendant intend to discharge the firearm. As the Chief Justice succinctly put it in the opening line of the court's opinion:
The extra punishment here is in addition to the punishment for the underlying crime. Mr. Dean will be spending many years behind bars.
The decision was 7-2, and the two dissenters were Breyer and Stevens, who also dissented in D.C. v. Heller (finding the Second Amendment protects an individual right to gun ownership).
Police arrested Christopher Michael Dean and Ricardo Curtis Lopez for the crime. Both defendants were charged with conspiracy to commit a robbery affecting interstate commerce, in violation of federal law, and aiding and abetting each other in using, carrying, possessing, and discharging a firearm during an armed robbery, also in violation of federal law. At trial, Dean admitted that he had committed the robbery, and a jury found him guilty on both the robbery and firearm counts. The District Court sentenced Dean to a mandatory minimum term of 10 years in prison on the firearm count, because the firearm “discharged” during the robbery.
Dean appealed, contending that the discharge was accidental and that the sentencing enhancement in §924(c)(1)(A)(iii) requires proof that the defendant intended to discharge the firearm.
Section 924(c)(1)(A) provides:
“[A]ny person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime… uses or carries a firearm, or who, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses a firearm, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime —
“(i) be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 5 years;
“(ii) if the firearm is brandished, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 7 years; and
“(iii) if the firearm is discharged, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 10 years.” [Emphasis added.]
“(i) be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 5 years;
“(ii) if the firearm is brandished, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 7 years; and
“(iii) if the firearm is discharged, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 10 years.” [Emphasis added.]
The issue in the case was whether §924(c)(1)(A)(iii) contains a requirement that the defendant intend to discharge the firearm. As the Chief Justice succinctly put it in the opening line of the court's opinion:
Accidents happen. Sometimes they happen to individuals committing crimes with loaded guns. The question here is whether extra punishment Congress imposed for the discharge of a gun during certain crimes applies when the gun goes off accidentally.
The Supreme Court held yesterday that the extra punishment does apply. There is no requirement that the defendant intend to discharge the firearm.
The extra punishment here is in addition to the punishment for the underlying crime. Mr. Dean will be spending many years behind bars.
The decision was 7-2, and the two dissenters were Breyer and Stevens, who also dissented in D.C. v. Heller (finding the Second Amendment protects an individual right to gun ownership).
