|
|
United States v. Shabani, 513 U.S. 10 (1994)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
United States v. Shabani, 513 U.S. 10 (1994)
United States v. Shabani No. 93-981 Argued October 3, 1994 Decided November 1, 1994 513 U.S. 10
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Respondent Shabani was convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 after the District Court refused to instruct the jury that proof of an overt act in furtherance of a narcotics conspiracy is required for conviction under § 846. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that, under its precedent, the Government must prove at trial that a defendant has committed such an overt act.
Held: In order to establish a violation of § 846, the Government need not prove the commission of any overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. The statute’s plain language does not require an overt act, and such a requirement has not been inferred from congressional silence in other conspiracy statutes, see, e.g., Nash v. United States, 229 U.S. 373. Thus, absent contrary indications, it is presumed that Congress intended to adopt the common law definition of conspiracy, which "does not make the doing of any act other than the act of conspiring a condition of liability," id. at 378. Moreover, since the general conspiracy statute and the conspiracy provision of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 both require an overt act, it appears that Congress’ choice in § 846 was quite deliberate. United States v. Felix, 503 U.S. 378, distinguished. While Shabani correctly asserts that the law does not punish criminal thoughts, in a criminal conspiracy, the criminal agreement itself is the actus reus. The rule of lenity cannot be invoked here, since the statute is not ambiguous. Pp. 13-17.
993 F.2d 1419, reversed.
O’CONNOR, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," United States v. Shabani, 513 U.S. 10 (1994) in 513 U.S. 10 513 U.S. 11. Original Sources, accessed November 25, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=PPRA5UYD62RN5YJ.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." United States v. Shabani, 513 U.S. 10 (1994), in 513 U.S. 10, page 513 U.S. 11. Original Sources. 25 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=PPRA5UYD62RN5YJ.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in United States v. Shabani, 513 U.S. 10 (1994). cited in 1994, 513 U.S. 10, pp.513 U.S. 11. Original Sources, retrieved 25 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=PPRA5UYD62RN5YJ.
|