‘Sentence Enhancements’ Curbed

Juries, not judges, must decide whether a defendant deserves more prison time because his offense was a hate crime, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The 5-4 decision does not affect most “hate crime” laws in California and elsewhere. Those statutes already put the matter in the jury’s hands.

However, the ruling limits the use of so-called “sentence enhancements” imposed by judges. Under these laws, judges can increase the punishment for a convicted criminal if his offense was motivated by race, gender, religious or other biases.

Speaking for the court, Justice John Paul Stevens said that the Constitution gives all defendants facing substantially more prison time the right to have the hate-crime charge “submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Ruling May Encourage Higher Penalties

Professor Brian Levin, an expert on hate crimes at Cal State San Bernardino, said the decision is not a major setback.

It will likely encourage state legislatures to set higher maximum penalties for some offenses, he said.

“The overwhelming majority of hate crime sentencing enhancement laws will be unaffected because they already require that these issues be decided by a jury,” Levin said.

But the decision likely will knock at least two years off a 12-year prison sentence given to a white New Jersey man who fired shots into the home of a black neighbor.

Charles Apprendi Jr., a 37-year-old pharmacist from Vineland, N.J., was drinking heavily on the night of Dec. 22, 1994. Well after midnight, he fired eight shots into the home of the one African American family in the area.

No one was injured and Apprendi was immediately arrested. Under questioning, he said that he fired the shots because his neighbors were black.

He was indicted on several weapons charges and pleaded guilty to offenses that could yield a maximum 10-year prison term. At his sentencing hearing, prosecutors cited the state’s Ethnic Intimidation Act and asked for a stiffer sentence.

Taking the witness stand, Apprendi denied that his crime was racially motivated and blamed it on his drinking. But the judge agreed with the prosecutors that, more likely than not, Apprendi’s offense reflected racial bias. The judge imposed the 12-year term.

The Supreme Court in 1993 upheld the constitutionality of hate crimes laws. But it had not made clear who must decide whether the crime was motivated by racial bias.

In recent years, the justices have struggled to clarify the line between so-called “sentencing factors” and the crime itself.

A basic principle of American law is that defendants have a right to be tried by a jury. Prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant committed the crime.

At the same time, judges traditionally weigh factors about the defendant and his crimes when deciding on a sentence.

Once again in the case (Apprendi vs. New Jersey, 99-478), the justices found themselves closely split. The majority said that, because the 12-year sentence exceeded the maximum for the gun crimes, the “racial bias” offense was like a separate crime that must be weighed by the jury.

Justice Stevens wrote a 32-page opinion, and Justice Clarence Thomas added another 27-page opinion agreeing with him. Justice Antonin Scalia filed a two-page opinion agreeing as well. Justice David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined the majority.

Dissenters File Voluminous Opinions

The dissenters did not go quietly. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote 33 pages to disagree, and Justice Stephen G. Breyer added 13 pages of his own dissent. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist joined both dissents and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy joined O’Connor’s.

The issue figures to be a recurring one. Just three weeks ago, the court overturned the 30-year prison terms given to survivors of the Branch Davidian tragedy near Waco, Texas. They were convicted by a jury on gun charges that carried five-year prison terms, but prosecutors had asked a judge to impose the severe 30-year term because their weapons were machine guns.

In the area of hate crimes, California has both types of statutes. It is a separate crime to “willfully injure [or] intimidate” someone or damage their property because of the “person’s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, gender or sexual orientation.” Defendants have a right to have a jury decide this charge.

The state’s “sentence enhancement” law allows a judge to add up to four years in prison if a crime was motivated by illegal bias. Monday’s ruling would appear to cast doubt on these extra sentences if they are imposed by a judge alone.