Carter v. United States
Ruling blocks defendants charged with bank robbery from getting a separate bank-larceny jury instruction under the federal bank-larceny law, narrowing jury options and making lesser convictions harder to obtain.
Holding
The Court held that the federal bank-larceny offense requires elements not present in the federal bank-robbery offense, so bank-larceny is not a lesser included offense of bank-robbery.
Real-world impact
- Prevents robbery defendants from getting a bank-larceny jury instruction at trial.
- Narrows jury options in federal bank theft cases.
- Resolves conflicting appeals-court rulings on this issue.
Topics
Summary
Background
Floyd Carter wore a ski mask, entered a bank, forced a customer back inside, jumped over the counter, and took about $16,000 from teller drawers. He was indicted for bank robbery under the federal robbery provision and asked the trial judge to give the jury a separate instruction on bank larceny as a lesser offense. The trial court denied that request, and the Third Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court took the case to resolve a split among federal appeals courts.
Reasoning
The Court applied the elements-based test from Schmuck: a lesser offense must have elements that are a subset of the charged offense. The Justices compared the two federal statutes and found three elements in the bank-larceny provision that do not appear in the bank-robbery provision: a specific intent to steal, the requirement that the property be taken and carried away (asportation), and a valuation element (property value exceeding $1,000). Because those elements are not textual parts of the robbery offense, the Court concluded the larceny statute is not a lesser included offense of the robbery statute, so a robbery defendant cannot demand that larceny instruction.
Real world impact
The decision limits the choices a jury may be given in cases charged as federal bank robbery, making it harder for defendants to secure less severe convictions by instruction alone. It also resolves conflicting appeals-court rulings about this specific issue.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Ginsburg dissented, arguing Congress intended the statutes to reflect the common-law relationship (larceny as a lesser form of robbery) and that some larceny instructions should remain available to robbery defendants.
Opinions in this case
- 1.Opinion 118376
- 2.Opinion 9433975
- 3.Opinion 9433976
Questions, answered
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents). Try:
- “What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?”
- “How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?”
- “What are the practical implications of this ruling?”