elements of the crime

On December 22, 1994, Charles C. Apprendi, Jr., fired several .22-caliber bullets into the home of an African-American family that had recently moved into a previously all-white neighborhood in Vineland, New Jersey. Apprendi was promptly arrested and, at 3:05 a.m., admitted that he was the shooter. After further questioning, at 6:04 a.m., he made a statement—which he later retracted—that even though he did not know the occupants of the house personally, "because they are black in color he does not want them in the neighborhood." A New Jersey grand jury returned a 23-count indictment charging Apprendi with four first-degree, eight second-degree, six third-degree, and five fourth-degree offenses. The charges alleged shootings on four different dates, as well as the unlawful possession of firearms and other weapons. None of the counts referred to the hate crime statute, and none alleged that Apprendi acted with a racially biased purpose. The parties entered into a plea agreement, pursuant to which Apprendi pleaded guilty to two counts (3 and 18) of second-degree possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose, N. J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:39-4a (West 1995), and one count (22) of the third-degree offense of unlawful possession of an antipersonnel bomb, § 2C:39-3a. The prosecutor dismissed the other 20 counts. As part of the plea agreement, the State reserved the right to request the court to impose a higher "enhanced" sentence on count 18 on the ground that that offense was committed with a biased purpose, as described in § 2C:44-3(e). Apprendi reserved the right to challenge the hate crime sentence enhancement on the ground that it violates the United States Constitution. After the trial judge accepted the three guilty pleas, the prosecutor filed a formal motion for an extended term. The trial judge thereafter held an evidentiary hearing on the issue of Apprendi's "purpose" for the shooting on December 22. Apprendi adduced evidence from a psychologist and from seven character witnesses who testified that he did not have a reputation for racial bias. He also took the stand himself, explaining that the incident was an unintended consequence of overindulgence in alcohol, denying that he was in any way biased against African-Americans, and denying that his statement to the police had been accurately described. The judge found the police officer's testimony credible and concluded that the evidence supported a finding "that the crime was motivated by racial bias." Having found "by a preponderance of the evidence" that Apprendi's actions were taken "with a purpose to intimidate" as provided by the statute, the trial judge held that the hate crime enhancement applied. The judge sentenced him to a 12-year term of imprisonment on count 18, and to shorter concurrent sentences on the other two counts. Apprendi appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution requires that the finding of bias upon which his hate crime sentence was based must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Over dissent, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey upheld the enhanced sentence. A divided New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed.

Respondent Freddie Booker was charged with possession with intent to distribute at least 50 grams of crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The jury heard evidence that he possessed 92.5 grams in his duffel bag and found him guilty. Based on the jury's findings and his criminal history, the Guidelines called for a base sentence of 210 to 262 months. At sentencing, the district judge found by a preponderance that Booker possessed an additional 566 grams of crack and had obstructed justice. These findings raised the range to 360 months to life. The judge imposed 360 months. In the companion case, respondent Ducan Fanfan was convicted of conspiracy involving at least 500 grams of cocaine. The jury verdict authorized up to 78 months. The judge found additional facts that would have raised the range to 188 to 235 months but declined to apply them after Blakely. The Seventh Circuit held Booker's sentence violated the Sixth Amendment under Blakely and Apprendi. It remanded for resentencing based on jury findings. The Government sought certiorari in both cases, which the Court granted.

Dennis Davis was indicted for the crime of having, on the 18th day of September, 1894, at the Creek Nation, in the Indian Territory, within the Western District of Arkansas, feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought, killed and murdered one Sol Blackwell. He was found guilty of the charge in the indictment. A motion for a new trial having been overruled, and the court having adjudged that the accused was guilty of the crime of murder, as charged, he was sentenced to suffer the penalty of death by hanging. At the trial below the government introduced evidence which, if alone considered, made it the duty of the jury to return a verdict of guilty of the crime charged. But there was evidence tending to show that at the time of the killing the accused, by reason of unsoundness or weakness of mind, was not criminally responsible for his acts. In addition to the evidence of a practicing physician of many years standing, and who, for the time, was physician at the jail in which the accused was confined previous to his trial, other witnesses testified that they had been intimately acquainted with the defendant for several years, lived near him, and had been frequently with him, knew his mental condition, and that he was weak-minded, and regarded by his neighbors and people as being what they called half crazy. Other witnesses who had known the defendant for ten to twenty years, witnesses who had worked with him and had been thrown in constant contact with him, said he had always been called half crazy, weak-minded; and in the opinion of the witnesses defendant was not of sound mind.