Apprendi v. New Jersey

By Brett A. Purtzer; Sept 2000

     The United States Supreme Court made a substantial change in criminal law and attempted to clarify what facts constitute a sentencing enhancement and what facts constitute an offense element.  Apprendi v. New Jersey, 120 S.Ct. 2348 (2000). In Apprendi, the defendant was charged with various assault charges and entered into a plea agreement.  In the plea agreement the defendant plead guilty to two counts of second degree possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose, and one count of third degree offense of unlawful possession of an anti-personnel bomb.  At issue was whether the defendant acted with a racially biased purpose.  If the judge made such a determination, it would increase the maximum sentence that the defendant was facing. 

     After the trial court accepted the plea, a hearing was held whereupon the judge found that the evidence, by a preponderance of the evidence, supported a finding that the crime was motivated by racial bias; therefore, the hate crime enhancement applied.  The defense argued that the due process clause required that such a finding, which a hate crime sentence was based, must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.  The Supreme Court agreed. 

     In finding for Apprendi, the Court held that a criminal defendant is entitled to a “jury determination that he is guilty of every element of the crime with which he is charged, beyond a reasonable doubt.”  Specifically, the Court held that any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 

     The significance of Apprendi is something that we all face in our own cases.  In particular, this situation arises when a client is charged with assault by use of a deadly weapon, and the state alleges in the Information not only assault, but the deadly weapon enhancement. In order for the defendant to be subject to the enhanced sentence, the state must establish not only the elements of the substantive offense, but also the deadly weapon enhancement.  If the court does not submit such an instruction to the jury, and your client is found guilty of the substantive offense, there is no basis in which to find that your client’s sentence can be enhanced.  This is also the situation in cases dealing with DUIs where there is a refusal or a breath reading over .15 and an enhancement penalty applies.  Accordingly, one must always be aware that when jury instructions are being submitted that the jury is apprised of each and every element.  If the state fails to either assert such an element in the information or fails to submit a jury instruction to the jury, no basis for the sentence enhancement, pursuant to Apprendi, would apply.

     Apprendi is likely to get much attention because of the affect that it would have on not only state cases, but federal cases.  The Apprendi court takes issue with some of its earlier holdings, and the prior cases Apprendi cites should be reviewed for consideration.  One thing that is clear, however, is that Apprendi sets limits on what a court can do when deciding certain elements for sentencing purposes.  Accordingly, in all of the cases with which you are currently dealing, as well as those that have already been decided, make certain that you are aware of Apprendi and take action with those cases that still deserve such attention.