Citation network
Apprendi Vs. New Jersey
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 26, 2000
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Apprendi v. NewSearch
-
Jersey - 530 U.S. 466 (2000) October Term, 1999 Syllabus Apprendi V. NewSearch
-
given that it exceeds the lO-year maximum for the offense charged-was foreshadowed by the holding in Jones v. UnitedSearch
-
such discretion is bound by the range of sentencing options prescribed by the legislature. See, e. g., United States v. TuckerSearch
-
he could receive if punished according to the facts reflected in the jury verdict alone. Pp.476-485. (c) McMillan v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
to greater or additional punishment may raise serious constitutional concerns, id., at 88. Almendarez-Torres v. UnitedSearch
-
Jersey upheld the enhanced sentence. 304 N. J. Super. 147,698 A. 2d 1265 (1997). Relying on our decision in McMillan v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
of allowing penaltyenhancing findings to be determined by a judge by a preponderance of the evidence, Jones v. UnitedSearch
-
essential to our holding. Turning then, as the appeals court had, to McMillan, as well as to Almendarez-Torres v. UnitedSearch
-
by, for example, relying on a presumption rather than evidence to establish an element of an offense, cf. Mullaney v. WilburSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
of traditional crimes, Patterson v. NewSearch
-
on a jury finding that the defendant had intentionally selected his victim because of the victim's race. Wisconsin v. MitchellSearch
-
a reasonable doubt is starkly presented. Our answer to that question was foreshadowed by our opinion in Jones v. UnitedSearch
-
see also Sullivan v. LouisianaSearch
-
Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 343 (1769) (hereinafter Blackstone) (emphasis added). See also Duncan v. LouisianaSearch
-
Amendment requires the States to provide to persons accused of crime encompasses the right to a trial by jury, Duncan v. LouisianaSearch
-
that was implicated in our recent decision in Almendarez-Torres v. UnitedSearch
-
he judg- 5 As we suggested in Jones v. UnitedSearch
-
of this nature in imposing sentence within statutory limits in the individual case. See, e. g., Williams v. NewSearch
-
that discretion was bound by the range of sentencing options prescribed by the legislature. See, e. g., United States v. TuckerSearch
-
Almendarez-Torres, 523 U. S., at 251 (SCALIA, J., dissenting). This was a primary lesson of Mullaney v. WilburSearch
-
U. S., at 698.12 IV It was in McMillan v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
challenge to the State's Man- 12 Contrary to the principal dissent's suggestion, post, at 530-532, Patterson v. NewSearch
-
Id., at 87-88.13 Finally, as we made plain in Jones last Term, AlmendarezTorres v. UnitedSearch
-
beyond the maximum of the statutory range.14 14 The principal dissent's contention that our decision in Monge v. CaliforniaSearch
-
requirement at issue. The rule was succinctly stated by Justice Clifford in his separate opinion in United States v. ReeseSearch
-
Steel v. SmithSearch
-
of the constitutional rule ex- of exposing all who are convicted to the maximum sentence it provides. Patterson v. NewSearch
-
Finally, the principal dissent ignores the distinction the Court has often recognized, see, e. g., Martin v. OhioSearch
-
interpretation of the state statute, see Wisconsin v. MitchellSearch
-
defendant guilty of a capital crime, to find specific aggravating factors before imposing a sentence of death. Walton v. ArizonaSearch
-
We therefore express no view on the subject beyond what this Court has already held. See, e. g., Edwards v. UnitedSearch
-
With the exception of the Grand Jury Clause, see Hurtado v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S. 516 , 538 (1884), the Court has held that these protections apply in state prosecutions, Herring v. NewSearch
-
to know which facts are elements. This question became more complicated following the Court's decision in McMillan v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
to which elements are subject. JUSTICE O'CONNOR'S dissent, in agreement with McMillan and Almendarez-Torres v. UnitedSearch
-
which produced the leading cases in the antebellum years, applied this rule as early as 1804, in Commonwealth v. SmithSearch
-
The understanding implicit in Smith was explained in Hope v. CommonwealthSearch
-
The statute was structured similarly to the statutes that we addressed in Jones v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 526 U. S. 227 , 230 (1999), and, even more, Castillo v. UnitedSearch
-
Larned v. CommonwealthSearch
-
a fact was not the basis for punishment, that fact was, for that reason, not an element. Thus, in Commonwealth v. McDonaldSearch
-
Mass., at 367. See Commonwealth v. BurkeSearch
-
error where value was not proved to jury). Similar reasoning was employed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Lacy v. StateSearch
-
federal courts in this period took the same approach to determining which facts are elements of a crime. See Ritchey v. StateSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial