Apprendi v. New Jersey

E649382

Apprendi v. New Jersey is a landmark 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that any fact (other than a prior conviction) that increases a criminal defendant’s sentence beyond the statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Statements Referenced by

Statements (48)

Predicate Object
instanceOf United States Supreme Court case
criminal procedure case
sentencing case
areaOfLaw constitutional criminal procedure
sentencing law
citation 120 S. Ct. 2348
147 L. Ed. 2d 435
530 U.S. 466
concurringInPartAndConcurringInJudgmentBy Clarence Thomas NERFINISHED
constitutionalProvisionInterpreted Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution NERFINISHED
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution NERFINISHED
country United States of America
surface form: United States
court Supreme Court of the United States
decisionDate 2000-06-26
decisionType landmark decision
dissentingJustices Clarence Thomas NERFINISHED
Sandra Day O’Connor NERFINISHED
Stephen G. Breyer NERFINISHED
William H. Rehnquist NERFINISHED
docketNumber No. 99-478
holding 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 rule does not apply to the fact of a prior conviction.
influencedCase Alleyne v. United States NERFINISHED
Blakely v. Washington NERFINISHED
Ring v. Arizona NERFINISHED
United States v. Booker NERFINISHED
jurisdiction United States of America
surface form: United States
keyPrinciple Distinction between elements of an offense and sentencing factors is constitutionally significant when it increases the statutory maximum.
Legislatures may not evade the jury-trial requirement by labeling elements as sentencing factors.
languageOfDecision English
legalIssue Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment NERFINISHED
Sixth Amendment right to jury trial
sentencing enhancement
majorityJustices Anthony M. Kennedy NERFINISHED
Antonin Scalia NERFINISHED
David H. Souter NERFINISHED
John Paul Stevens NERFINISHED
Ruth Bader Ginsburg NERFINISHED
majorityOpinionBy John Paul Stevens NERFINISHED
originatingCourt New Jersey state courts NERFINISHED
overruledOrLimitedPrecedent McMillan v. Pennsylvania NERFINISHED
petitioner Charles C. Apprendi, Jr. NERFINISHED
relatedDoctrine beyond a reasonable doubt standard
jury fact-finding requirement
respondent State of New Jersey NERFINISHED
result New Jersey hate-crime enhancement statute held unconstitutional as applied
subjectMatter hate-crime sentencing enhancement under New Jersey law
term October Term 1999 NERFINISHED

Referenced by (1)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

United States v. Booker relatedCase Apprendi v. New Jersey