Burrage v. United States

Last updated
Burrage v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 12, 2013
Decided January 27, 2014
Full case nameMarcus Andrew Burrage, Petitioner v. United States
Docket no. 12-7515
Citations571 U.S. 204 ( more )
134 S. Ct. 881; 187 L. Ed. 2d 715; 2014 U.S. LEXIS 797; 82 U.S.L.W. 4076
Argument Oral argument
Case history
Prior 687 F.3d 1015 (reversed and remanded)
Holding
At least when the use of a drug distributed by the defendant is not an independently sufficient cause of the victim's death or serious bodily injury, a defendant cannot be liable for penalty enhancement under the penalty enhancement provision of the Controlled Substance Act unless such use is a but-for cause of the death or injury. Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityScalia, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Kagan; Alito (all but Part III–B)
ConcurrenceGinsburg (in judgment), joined by Sotomayor
Laws applied
Controlled Substances Act

Burrage v. United States, 571 U.S. 204 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which a unanimous Court held that a defendant cannot be liable for penalty enhancement under the penalty enhancement provision of the Controlled Substances Act unless such use is a but-for cause of the death or injury, at least when the use of a drug distributed by the defendant is not an independently sufficient cause of the victim's death or serious bodily injury. [1] [2] [3]

Contents

Background

After an extended drug binge which began on April 14, 2010, involving marijuana, oxycodone (which he stole from a roommate), and heroin, Joshua Banka died on April 15. His wife found his body late that morning; they had purchased heroin together from Marcus Burrage in Story County, Iowa. When police searched their home and vehicle, they found syringes, 0.59 grams of heroin, alprazolam and clonazepam tablets, oxycodone pills, a bottle of hydrocodone, and other drugs.

Burrage pleaded not guilty to a superseding indictment alleging two counts of distributing heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C.   § 841(a)(1). Only one of those offenses, count 2, which alleged that Burrage unlawfully distributed heroin on April 14, 2010, and that "death...resulted from the use of th[at] substance"—thus subjecting Burrage to the 20 year mandatory minimum of 21 U.S.C.   § 841(b)(1)(C), was at issue in the case.

Two medical experts testified at trial regarding the cause of Banka's death. One, a forensic toxicologist, determined that multiple drugs were present but could not say whether Banka would have lived if he had not taken the heroin, though he concluded that the drug was a factor in Banka's death. Another, an Iowa state medical examiner, similarly could not determine whether Banka would have lived had he not taken the heroin, but said that his death would have been much less likely.

Burrage moved for acquittal because Banka's death was not "because of" the heroin (there was no evidence that heroin was a but-for cause of death), but the motion was denied. The district court also declined giving Burrage's proposed jury instructions, including requiring the government to prove that heroin use "was the proximate cause of [Banka’s] death." Instead, the court instructed the jury to determine if "the heroin distributed by [Burrage] was a contributing cause of Joshua Banka's death." The jury convicted him and the court sentenced him to 20 years' imprisonment, consistent with the minimum sentence in the law. The Eighth Circuit affirmed Burrage's convictions. [4]

The Court heard oral argument on November 12, 2013. Angela L. Campbell was appointed by the Court to argue for the petitioner, and Benjamin Horwich, assistant to the Solicitor General, argued for the United States. [5]

Opinion of the Court

Justice Scalia wrote the opinion of the Court.

The Court held that the law considers causation as a hybrid between two constituent parts: actual cause, or cause-in-fact, and legal cause, which is also known as proximate cause. Because the cause-in-fact requirement was not met in this case, the Court did not rule on whether the crime of distribution of drugs causing death required a foreseeability or proximate cause requirement. Instead, the Court focused on the specific text found in 21 U.S.C.   § 841(b), the federal law requiring heightened sentences for drug sales causing death or serious bodily injury. The language in that statute requires that the death “results from” the sale of illegal drugs. Because the deceased in this case was found with multiple drugs in his system, the heroin sold by the defendant could not be considered an independently sufficient cause of death. [2] [6]

Justice Ginsburg's Concurrence

Justice Ginsburg wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by Justice Sotomayor, objecting to an analogy made in the opinion that compared the "results from" language in drug statutes to similar language found in Title VII's anti-retaliation provision. Citing her dissent in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (2013), she argued that the Court's interpretation of similar language (in that case, "because of") lacked sensitivity to real-life concerns. [2]

Related Research Articles

United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that, in a criminal proceeding in federal court, a defendant who does not alert the district court to a possible violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure must show on appeal that the violation affirmatively affected his rights in order to obtain reversal of his conviction by guilty plea. Rule 11, which pertains to criminal prosecutions in United States federal courts only, governs the offering of plea bargains to criminal defendants and the procedures district courts must employ to ensure that the defendant knows of and properly waives his trial-related constitutional rights.

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court decision on criminal sentencing. The Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial requires that other than a prior conviction, only facts admitted by a defendant or proved beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury may be used to calculate a sentence exceeding the prescribed statutory maximum sentence, whether the defendant has pleaded guilty or been convicted at trial. The maximum sentence that a judge may impose is based upon the facts admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719 (1992), is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court. The case established the right of defendants to challenge for cause any juror that would automatically impose the death penalty in all capital cases.

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the federal appeals courts may not presume that a sentence falling outside the range recommended by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines is unreasonable. Applying this rule to the case at hand, it upheld a sentence of 36 months' probation imposed on a man who pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute ecstasy in the face of a recommended sentence of 30 to 37 months in prison.

Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, by a 6–2 vote, that it is a violation of a defendant's Fifth Amendment rights for the prosecutor to comment to the jury on the defendant's declining to testify, or for the judge to instruct the jury that such silence is evidence of guilt.

Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court refused to hold that large sentencing discounts and threats of the death penalty are sufficient evidence of coercion.

Abbott v. United States, 562 U.S. 8 (2010), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that addressed the mandatory sentencing increase under federal law for the possession or use of a deadly weapon in drug trafficking and violent crimes. In an 8–0 decision, the Court ruled that 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), which required a minimum five-year prison sentence, was to be imposed in addition to any other mandatory sentence given for another crime, including the underlying drug-related or violent offense. The only exception to the five-year addition applied only when another provision required a longer mandatory term for conduct violating §924(c) specifically, rather than a mandatory sentence for another crime as the defendants had unsuccessfully argued.

DePierre v. United States, 564 U.S. 70 (2011), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the use of the term "cocaine base" in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1) refers to cocaine in its chemically basic form. The decision of the Court was unanimous, except with respect to Part III–A.

McNeill v. United States, 563 U.S. 816 (2011), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that, regarding whether an offense under State law is a serious drug offense for purposes of federal sentencing, courts must consult the maximum term of imprisonment for the offense at the time of conviction.

Kansas v. Cheever, 571 U.S. 87 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which a unanimous Court held that the Fifth Amendment does not prevent the prosecution from introducing psychiatric evidence to rebut psychiatric evidence presented by the defense.

Kansas v. Carr, 577 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified several procedures for sentencing defendants in capital cases. Specifically, the Court held that judges are not required to affirmatively instruct juries about the burden of proof for establishing mitigating evidence, and that joint trials of capital defendants "are often preferable when the joined defendants’ criminal conduct arises out of a single chain of events". This case included the last majority opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia before his death in February 2016.

McFadden v. United States, 576 U.S. 186 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that section 841 of the Controlled Substances Act requires the government to prove that to be in criminal violation, a defendant must be aware that an analogue defined by the Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act with which he was dealing was a controlled substance.

Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. ___ (2017), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court reversed the death sentence of the defendant Duane Buck after the defendant's attorney introduced evidence that suggested the defendant would be more likely to commit violent acts in the future because he was black.

Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449 (2009), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a defendant was entitled to a hearing to determine whether prosecutors in his 1982 death penalty trial violated his right to due process by withholding exculpatory evidence. The defendant, Gary Cone, filed a petition for postconviction relief from a 1982 death sentence in which he argued that prosecutors violated his rights to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment by withholding police reports and witness statements that potentially could have shown that his drug addiction affected his behavior. In an opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Supreme Court held that Cone was entitled to a hearing to determine whether the prosecution's failure to disclose exculpatory evidence violated Cone's right to due process; the Court noted that "the quantity and the quality of the suppressed evidence lends support to Cone’s position at trial that he habitually used excessive amounts of drugs, that his addiction affected his behavior during his crime spree". In 2016, Gary Cone died from natural causes while still sitting on Tennessee's death row.

<i>Smith v. United States</i> (2013) 2013 United States Supreme Court case

Smith v. United States, 568 U.S. 106 (2013), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States of America. The case was argued on November 6, 2012, and decided on January 9, 2013.

Shular v. United States, 589 U.S. ___ (2020), is an opinion of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that, under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, the definition of “serious drug offense” only requires that the state offense involve the conduct specified in the statute. Unlike other provisions of the ACCA, it does not require that state courts develop “generic” version of a crime, which describe the elements of the offense as they are commonly understood, and then compare the crime being charged to that generic version to determine whether the crime qualifies under the ACCA for purposes of penalty enhancement. The decision states that offenses defined under the ACCA are "unlikely names for generic offenses," and are therefore unambiguous. This renders the rule of lenity inapplicable.

Ruan v. United States, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.

A grant of appellate review is dismissed as improvidently granted (DIG) when a court with discretionary appellate jurisdiction later decides that it should not review the case. Notably, the Supreme Court of the United States occasionally grants a petition of the writ of certiorari, only to later DIG the case.

Lora v. United States, 599 U.S. ___ (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding Title 18 of the United States Code, the main federal criminal code of the United States. The Court held that a provision of one subsection of Title 18 barring concurrent sentences does not govern sentences pursuant to a different part of the same section.

Pulsifer v. United States,, is a pending United States Supreme Court case regarding 18 U.S.C. § 3553, the federal sentencing statute.

References

  1. ↑ Burrage v. United States,No. 12-7515 , 571 U.S. ___, 134 S. Ct. 881 (2014).
  2. 1 2 3 The Oyez Project: Burrage v. United States
  3. ↑ Rodgers, Grant (27 Jan 2014). "U.S. Supreme Court throws out conviction of Iowa drug dealer". The Des Moines Register. Retrieved 2 July 2014.
  4. ↑ United States v. Burrage, 687 F. 3d 1015
  5. ↑ Liptak, Adam (12 Nov 2013). "Justices Weigh Role Drug Played in a Fatal Cocktail". The New York Times. Retrieved 1 July 2014.
  6. ↑ Savage, David (27 Jan 2014). "Supreme Court relaxes mandatory drug-dealer sentencing in overdoses". The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2 July 2014.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.