March 3, 2010
A decisive majority of the Supreme Court agreed yesterday that mere touching could not be considered use of physical force against another person. The case, Johnson v. United States, No. 08-6925, analyzed the Armed Career Criminal Statute (ACCA) that imposes a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence when a felon in possession of a firearm has three or more prior violent felonies -- crimes that involve the use of force -- on his record.
“We are pleased the Supreme Court has taken this small but significant step for rational sentencing. FAMM has long opposed the 15-year mandatory minimum in the ACCA, because it punishes too many people who don’t deserve the label ‘armed career criminal,” said Mary Price, vice president and general counsel of Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM), a group that promotes individualized, proportionate and fair sentences.
In the case, Johnson pled guilty to possessing ammunition as a convicted felon and was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act to 15½ years in prison. The government used his three prior convictions as the basis for charging him under the ACCA. Those prior offenses must be violent felonies that have “as an element the use . . . of physical force against” another person to trigger the ACCA.
One of the three offenses the government used to prove armed career criminal status against Johnson was his 2003 Florida conviction for simple battery, which was considered a felony under Florida law. The Florida law defines “simple battery” as, among other things, “[a]ctually and intentionally touch[ing] . . . another person against his will. The record did not disclose whether Johnson had used violent force against another person or whether his simple battery conviction was for simply intentionally touching. The Justices grappled with whether simple intentional touching is a violent felony.
After analyzing the ACCA statute, reviewing the underlying Florida statute, and looking at the plain meaning of words like force and violence, the Justices concluded that Johnson’s prior conviction, which could have been no more than a touch, therefore did not rise to the level of a violent felony.
Justice Scalia’s rather dry 7-2 majority opinion belied the lively oral argument in this case, which took place in October. For example, in response to the government’s argument that even the slightest bit of force would qualify as a violent crime under the terms of ACCA, Justice Ginsburg asked: “And [when] Congress was trying to get at the worst of the worst in the ACCA . . . they meant to [go] after people who go around poking other people in a rude manner?”
Johnson’s case was remanded for resentencing. To learn more about this case and read the briefs and oral argument go to: http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Johnson_v._United_States.