McMillan v. Pennsylvania

Background

Four people convicted of listed violent felonies in Pennsylvania challenged a 1982 state law that forces a judge to impose at least five years in prison if the judge finds that the defendant “visibly possessed a firearm” during the crime. The law requires that finding at the sentencing hearing by a preponderance of the evidence and says that visible possession is not an element of the crime. Trial judges refused to apply the statute, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld it, and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to decide the constitutional question.

Reasoning

The key question was whether the visible-possession fact had to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt like elements of a crime, or whether the State could treat it as a sentencing factor proved by a lower standard. The Court relied on earlier decisions saying States usually may define the elements of offenses and concluded Pennsylvania permissibly classified visible possession as a sentencing factor. The Court held that proving that fact by a preponderance of the evidence at sentencing satisfies the Due Process Clause, and that the Sixth Amendment does not require a jury to make such sentencing findings.

Real world impact

As a result, judges in Pennsylvania can increase a convicted person’s sentence to a five-year minimum when they find visible firearm possession by the lower preponderance standard. This changes how and when courts decide that a firearm was used in a crime: the finding can occur after conviction, at sentencing, rather than as an element the prosecutor must prove at trial beyond a reasonable doubt. The decision narrows challenges that defendants can raise based on jury trial and proof-of-elements arguments.

Dissents or concurrances

Three Justices dissented, arguing that when a legislature singles out conduct that brings both extra stigma and harsher punishment, that conduct should be treated as an element and proved beyond a reasonable doubt to protect defendants’ rights.