NAME: Jamar Alonzo Quarles, Petitioner v. United States
JOINING: Roberts, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch
Case CommentaryPer my reading (un-nuanced as it is), Thomas' Opinion contains (and/or is formed around) a major internal inconsistency.
The categorical approach relies on a comparison of the crime of conviction and judicially created ideal of burglary. But the ideal is starkly different from the reality of petitioner's actual crime: Petitioner attempted to climb through an apartment window to attack his ex-girlfriend.
Moreover, any reasonable jury reviewing the record here would have concluded that petitioner was convicted of burglary, so any error was harmless.
Let me just say, it ain't over until I say it is over... and/or until such a time as a reasonable jury agrees.
But then, I have no truck with The Categorical Approach. I think Sentence Enhancers (plus fifteen years, in the case at hand, for being a felon in possession of a firearm) are unfair. But then, given the enhancement, The Categorical Approach is a workable way of determining such enhancements.
Mens Rea: A Mind that has the quality of Guilt... or if you like, Guilty Mind.
Actus Reus: An Act that has the quality of Guilt... or if you like, Guilty Act.