Also known as:predicate offences · predicate offenses · predicate crime · underlying offense · predicate act
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An underlying crime that forms the basis for liability under a compound or enhanced offense such as felony murder.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Misdemeanor Death Foreseeability
Perry Pratt chained a factory exit shut in violation of a safety ordinance classified as a non-malum-in-se misdemeanor. A small fire broke out from an electrical short and a worker died of smoke inhalation because the exit was blocked. The prosecution relies on the misdemeanor-manslaughter rule and must show that the death was a foreseeable result of the ordinance violation.
Sentencing Factor Challenge
Pedro Pacheco was convicted of robbery and the judge imposed an enhanced sentence after finding that the robbery was committed with deliberate cruelty. The defense argues that the cruelty finding functions as a predicate offense element that must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Statutes
Common Law
Study Supplements
Dictionaries
Blakely v. Washington542 U.S. 296 (2004)
Honest Services Fraud Basis
Phoebe Park was charged with honest-services fraud after prosecutors alleged she accepted undisclosed payments to steer contracts. The defense contends that the undisclosed payments do not constitute a predicate offense sufficient to support the fraud charge under the statute.
Skilling v. United States561 U.S. 358, 407, 130 S.Ct. 2896, 2930, 177 L.Ed.2d 619 (2010)
Forfeiture Predicate Crime
Portia Price was convicted of obscenity violations and the government sought forfeiture of her business assets. The defense maintains that the obscenity convictions do not qualify as predicate offenses that permit the broad forfeiture ordered by the district court.
Alexander v. United States509 U.S. 444 (1993)
Identity Theft Predicate
Patricia Patel was charged with aggravated identity theft after using another person's Social Security number to open bank accounts. The defense argues that the government must prove she knew the number belonged to an actual person as an element of the predicate offense.
Flores-Figueroa v. United States556 U.S. 646, 652, 129 S.Ct. 1886, 173 L.Ed.2d 853 (2009)
Money Laundering Underlying Crime
Piper Patel was prosecuted for money laundering after depositing proceeds from an alleged drug sale into multiple accounts. The defense asserts that the government failed to establish the existence of a completed predicate offense generating the laundered funds.
United States v. Anderson452 F.3d 66, 76 (1st Cir. 2006)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
4
What role does a predicate offense play in felony murder?+
A predicate offense supplies the underlying felony that converts an otherwise unintentional killing into murder under the felony-murder rule. The felony must be one that the jurisdiction recognizes as dangerous enough to support strict liability for the resulting death.
Supporting sources
Can a misdemeanor ever serve as a predicate offense for manslaughter?+
Yes under the majority common-law approach when the death is a foreseeable result of the misdemeanor. A minority of courts limit the doctrine to misdemeanors that are malum in se.
Supporting sources
How does the concept appear in compound offenses such as use of a telephone to commit a felony?+
The underlying felony is treated as the predicate offense that must be proved to support conviction on the compound charge. An acquittal on the predicate counts does not automatically require reversal of the compound conviction.
Supporting sources
Why must the government prove the predicate offense in money-laundering prosecutions?+
The statute requires proof that the property involved represents proceeds of a specified unlawful activity. Without establishing the predicate offense the prosecution cannot show that the funds are criminally derived.
Supporting sources
530 U.S. 466 (2000)Evidence
…found that the state legislature decided to make the hate crime enhancement a "sentencing factor," rather than an element of an underlying offense—and that decision was within the State's established power to define the elements of its crimes. The hate crime statute did not create a presumption of guilt, the court determined, and did…