Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1960

Stirone v. United States

361 U.S. 212 | 80 S. Ct. 270 | 4 L. Ed. 2d 252 | 1960 U.S. LEXIS 1969

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that a court may not let a jury convict on a factual theory of an essential element that the grand jury did not charge, even when the indictment supports a different valid theory of conviction.

Background

Nicholas Stirone was convicted under the Hobbs Act for extorting $31,274.13 from William Rider, a supplier of ready-mixed concrete for construction of a steel-processing plant in Allenport, Pennsylvania. The indictment alleged that Stirone used threats of labor disputes to obstruct, delay, and affect Rider's interstate receipt of sand shipped into Pennsylvania for use in making concrete.

Over Stirone's objections, the Government also introduced evidence that the completed steel plant would ship steel from Pennsylvania to Michigan and Kentucky. The trial judge instructed the jury that it could find the Hobbs Act's interstate-commerce element either from the incoming sand shipments or from the prospective outgoing steel shipments. The District Court denied post-trial relief, reasoning that the indictment supported both theories. The Court of Appeals affirmed, though two judges concluded that the indictment did not charge interference with steel exports and that this theory stretched the Hobbs Act too far.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the Hobbs Act covered Stirone's extortion because it threatened a concrete supplier whose business depended on interstate shipments of sand.

Holding

Yes. Interference with Rider's business could affect the interstate movement of sand into Pennsylvania and therefore fell within the Hobbs Act.

Reasoning

The Hobbs Act broadly prohibits obstructing, delaying, or affecting commerce "in any way or degree" through extortion. Congress used language designed to reach the full extent of its constitutional authority over interstate commerce.

Rider depended on sand transported from other States to operate his ready-mixed-concrete business. If Stirone's threats had crippled or destroyed that business, the interstate shipments of sand to Rider would have slowed or stopped. The jury could therefore find that Rider's payment prevented a harmful interruption of interstate commerce.

Because the interstate-sand theory supplied a sufficient jurisdictional foundation, the Court did not need to decide whether prospective steel shipments from the as-yet-unbuilt mill would independently satisfy the Hobbs Act.

Issue #2

Whether the trial court violated the Fifth Amendment by permitting conviction on an uncharged theory that Stirone interfered with future interstate shipments of steel.

Holding

Yes. Allowing the jury to convict on the steel-export theory constructively broadened the indictment and was fatal error.

Reasoning

The Fifth Amendment requires a felony prosecution to proceed on an indictment returned by a grand jury. Under Ex parte Bain, neither a court nor a prosecutor may broaden the charges after indictment; only the grand jury may make the accusation.

This indictment charged interference with Rider's interstate importation of sand. It did not fairly charge interference with future exports of steel from a plant that Rider's concrete would help construct. The grand jury chose the sand-commerce theory, and no court could assume that it would also have charged the distinct steel-export theory.

The trial court's admission of steel-shipment evidence and its alternative jury instruction had the same practical effect as amending the indictment. The jury may have convicted Stirone on the uncharged steel theory rather than on the sand theory actually returned by the grand jury.

The error was not a harmless variance between pleading and proof. Interstate commerce was an essential element of the Hobbs Act offense because it supplied the basis for federal jurisdiction. Where the indictment identifies one particular commerce affected, conviction must rest on that charged commerce, not on another uncharged type of commerce.

The grand-jury guarantee protects an accused from being put to trial for an offense selected by the prosecutor or court rather than independently charged by fellow citizens. Because Stirone may have been convicted of an offense the grand jury never charged, his conviction had to be reversed.