MUSACCHIO v. UNITED STATES
No. 14-1095
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
January 25, 2016
577 U. S. ____ (2016)
THOMAS, J.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2015
Syllabus
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
MUSACCHIO v. UNITED STATES
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1095. Argued November 30, 2015—Decided January 25, 2016
Held:
- A sufficiency challenge should be assessed against the elements of the charged crime, not against the elements set forth in an erroneous jury instruction. Sufficiency review essentially addresses whether the Government‘s case was strong enough to reach the jury. A reviewing court conducts a limited inquiry tailored to ensuring that a defendant receives the minimum required by due process: a “meaningful opportunity to defend” against the charge against him and a jury finding of guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307, 314-315. It does this by considering only the “legal” question “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could
have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id., at 319. A reviewing court‘s determination thus does not rest on how the jury was instructed. The Government‘s failure to introduce evidence of an additional element does not implicate these principles, and its failure to object to a heightened jury instruction does not affect sufficiency review. Because Musacchio does not dispute that he was properly charged with conspiracy to obtain unauthorized access or that the evidence was sufficient to convict him of the charged crime, the Fifth Circuit correctly rejected his sufficiency challenge. Pp. 5-8. - A defendant cannot successfully raise
§3282(a) ‘s statute-of-limitations bar for the first time on appeal. Pp. 8-11.(a) A time bar is jurisdictional only if Congress has “clearly state[d]” that it is. Sebelius v. Auburn Regional Medical Center, 568 U. S. ___. Here, the “text, context, and relevant historical treatment” of
§3282(a) , Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U. S. 154, 166, establish that it imposes a nonjurisdictional defense that becomes part of a case only if a defendant raises it in the district court. The provision does not expressly refer to subject-matter jurisdiction or speak in jurisdictional terms. It thus stands in marked contrast to§3231 , which speaks squarely to federal courts’ general criminal subject-matter “jurisdiction” and does not “conditio[n] its jurisdictional grant on” compliance with§3282(a) ‘s statute of limitations. Id., at 165. The history of§3282(a) ‘s limitations bar further confirms that the provision does not impose a jurisdictional limit. See United States v. Cook, 17 Wall. 168, 181; Smith v. United States, 568 U. S. ___. Pp. 8-10.(b) Because
§3282(a) does not impose a jurisdictional limit, the failure to raise the defense at or before trial is reviewable on appeal—if at all—only for plain error. A district court‘s failure to enforce an unraised limitations defense under§3282(a) cannot be a plain error, however, because if a defendant fails to press the defense, it does not
become part of the case and, thus, there is no error for an appellate court to correct. Pp. 10-11.
590 Fed. Appx. 359, affirmed.
THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Opinion of the Court
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 14-1095
MICHAEL MUSACCHIO, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
[January 25, 2016]
JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case, the Government failed to object to a jury instruction that erroneously added an element that it had to prove,
I
Petitioner Michael Musacchio served as president of a logistics company, Exel Transportation Services (ETS), until his resignation in 2004. In 2005, he formed a rival company, Total Transportation Services (TTS). Musacchio
was soon joined there by Roy Brown, who previously headed ETS‘s information-technology department. At TTS, Brown, using a password, continued to access ETS‘s computer system without ETS‘s authorization. Brown also gave Musacchio access to ETS‘s system. This improper access of ETS‘s system kept on until early 2006.
In November 2010, a grand jury indicted Musacchio under
In 2012, the Government filed a superseding indictment amending those charges. Count 1 dropped the charge of conspiracy to exceed authorized access, limiting that charge to conspiracy to make unauthorized access. Count 2 amended the allegations originally contained in count 23 by alleging that Musacchio accessed specific ETS e-mail accounts “[o]n or about” November 23-25, 2005. Id., at 83-84. The Government later filed a second superseding indictment that made no changes relevant here.
Musacchio proceeded to a jury trial. At no time before or during trial did he argue that his prosecution violated
the 5-year statute of limitations applicable to count 2. See
For the Government‘s part, it submitted proposed jury instructions on the conspiracy count before and during the trial. Each set of proposed instructions identified that count as involving “Unauthorized Access to Protected Computer[s],” and none required the jury additionally to find that Musacchio conspired to exceed authorized access to protected computers. Musacchio
Diverging from the indictment and the proposed instructions, the District Court instructed the jury on count 1 that
The jury found Musacchio guilty on both counts 1 and 2. The District Court sentenced him to 60 months’ imprisonment. Musacchio appealed, making the two challenges that he again advances in this Court. First, he challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conspiracy conviction on count 1. He maintained, moreover, that the sufficiency of the evidence should be assessed against the erroneous jury instruction that included the additional element. Second, he argued, for the first time, that his prosecution on count 2—for unauthorized access—was barred by the 5-year statute of limitations because the superseding indictment was filed seven years after the crime and did not relate back to the timely original indictment.
The Fifth Circuit rejected both challenges and affirmed
Musacchio‘s conviction. 590 Fed. Appx. 359 (2014) (per curiam). First, the Court of Appeals concluded that it should assess Musacchio‘s sufficiency challenge against the charged elements of the conspiracy count, not against the erroneous jury instruction. See id., at 362-363. Under Fifth Circuit precedent, the court explained, erroneously heightened jury instructions generally become the binding “law of the case” on appeal. Id., at 362 (internal quotation marks omitted). Circuit precedent supplies an exception, however, when (1) the jury instruction is ““patently erroneous,“” and (2) ““the issue is not misstated in the indictment.“” Ibid. (quoting United States v. Guevara, 408 F. 3d 252, 258 (CA5 2005)). The Fifth Circuit concluded that those conditions for applying the exception were satisfied. See 590 Fed. Appx., at 362-363. The court explained that the instruction‘s requirement of an additional element was “an obvious clerical error,” and that the indictment correctly charged Musacchio only with “Conspiracy To Make Unauthorized Access to [a] Protected Computer.” Id., at 362. Therefore, the Fifth Circuit did not assess Musacchio‘s sufficiency challenge under the heightened jury instruction. Id., at 362-363. Because Musacchio did not dispute that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction under the elements set out in the indictment, the Fifth Circuit rejected his challenge. Id., at 363.
Second, the Fifth Circuit rejected Musacchio‘s statute-of-limitations defense, concluding that he had “waived” the defense by failing to raise it at trial. Id., at 363, 364.
We granted certiorari to resolve two questions that have divided the lower courts. 576 U. S. ___ (2015). The first question is whether the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case should be measured against the elements described in the jury instructions where those instructions, without objection, require the Government to prove more elements than do the statute and indictment. Com-
pare, e.g., United States v. Romero, 136 F. 3d 1268, 1272–1273 (CA10 1998) (explaining that sufficiency
II
We first address how a court should assess a sufficiency challenge when a jury instruction adds an element to the charged crime and the Government fails to object. We hold that, when a jury instruction sets forth all the elements of the charged crime but incorrectly adds one more element, a sufficiency challenge should be assessed against the elements of the charged crime, not against the erroneously heightened command in the jury instruction.
That conclusion flows from the nature of a court‘s task in evaluating a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge. Sufficiency review essentially addresses whether “the government‘s case was so lacking that it should not have even been submitted to the jury.” Burks v. United States, 437 U. S. 1, 16 (1978) (emphasis deleted). On sufficiency review, a reviewing court makes a limited inquiry tailored to ensure that a defendant receives the minimum that due process requires: a “meaningful opportunity to defend” against the charge against him and a jury finding of guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307, 314–315 (1979). The reviewing court considers only the “legal” question “whether, after viewing the evi-
dence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id., at 319 (emphasis in original). That limited review does not intrude on the jury‘s role “to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.” Ibid.
A reviewing court‘s limited determination on sufficiency review thus does not rest on how the jury was instructed. When a jury finds guilt after being instructed on all elements of the charged crime plus one more element, the jury has made all the findings that due process requires. If a jury instruction requires the jury to find guilt on the elements of the charged crime, a defendant will have had a “meaningful opportunity to defend” against the charge. Id., at 314. And if the jury instruction requires the jury to find those elements “beyond a reasonable doubt,” the defendant has been accorded the procedure that this Court has required to protect the presumption of innocence. Id., at 314-315. The Government‘s failure to introduce evidence of an additional element does not implicate the principles that sufficiency review protects. All that a defendant is entitled to on a sufficiency challenge is for the court to make a “legal” determination whether the evidence was strong enough to reach a jury at all. Id., at 319. The Government‘s failure to object to the heightened jury instruction thus does not affect the court‘s review for sufficiency of the evidence.2
The Fifth Circuit erred, however, in basing that conclusion on the law-of-the-case doctrine. See 590 Fed. Appx., at 362-363. That doctrine does not apply here. The law-of-the-case doctrine generally provides that ““when a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case.“” Pepper v. United States, 562 U. S. 476, 506 (2011) (quoting Arizona v. California, 460 U. S. 605, 618 (1983)). The doctrine “expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided,” but it does not “limit [courts‘] power.” Messenger v. Anderson, 225 U. S. 436, 444 (1912). Thus, the doctrine may describe an appellate court‘s decision not to depart from a ruling that it made in a prior appeal in the same case. See C. Wright et al., 18B Federal Practice and Procedure §4478, p. 646, and n. 16 (2d ed. 2002) (collecting cases). But the doctrine is “something of a misnomer” when used to describe how an appellate court assesses a lower court‘s rulings. United States v. Wells, 519 U. S. 482, 487, n. 4 (1997). An appellate court‘s function is to revisit matters decided in the trial court. When an appellate court reviews a matter on which a party failed to object below, its review may well be constrained by other doctrines such as waiver, forfeiture, and estoppel, as well as by the type of challenge that it is evaluating. But it is not bound by district court rulings under the law-of-the-case doctrine. That doctrine does not bear on how to assess a sufficiency
challenge when a jury convicts a defendant after being instructed—without an objection by the Government—on all charged elements of a crime plus an additional element.
III
We now consider whether a defendant may successfully raise the statute-of-limitations bar in
A
Statutes of limitations and other filing deadlines “ordinarily are not jurisdictional.” Sebelius v. Auburn Regional Medical Center, 568 U. S. ___ (2013) (slip op., at 8). We treat a time bar as jurisdictional only if Congress has “clearly stated” that it is. Id., at ___ (slip op., at 6-7); (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted); see, e.g., Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U. S. 428, 436, 439 (2011) (requiring a “clear indication” that a statute is jurisdictional (internal quotation marks omitted)). To determine whether Congress has made the necessary clear statement, we examine the “text, context, and relevant historical treatment” of the provision at issue. Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U. S. 154, 166 (2010).
Congress has not made such a
The statutory text suggests that
“Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense, not capital, unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted within five years next after such offense shall have been committed.”
Although
Context confirms that
The history of the limitations bar in
the case, the Government then has “the right to reply or give evidence” on the limitations claim. 17 Wall., at 179.
Cook was decided more than 140 years ago, and we have adhered to its holding. Just three Terms ago, we reaffirmed that “[c]ommission of [a federal] crime within the statute-of-limitations period is not an element of the . . . offense,” and “it is up to the defendant to raise the limitations defense.” Smith v. United States, 568 U. S. ___ (2013) (slip op., at 6) (citing Cook; emphasis deleted); see also Biddinger v. Commissioner of Police of City of New York, 245 U. S. 128, 135 (1917) (“The statute of limitations is a defense and must be asserted on the trial by the defendant in criminal cases . . .” (citing
In keeping with
B
Because
As explained above, a statute-of-limitations defense becomes part of a case only if the defendant puts the defense in issue. When a defendant presses a limitations defense, the Government then bears the burden of establishing compliance with the statute of limitations by presenting evidence that the crime was committed within the limitations period or by establishing an exception to the limitations period. See Cook, supra, at 179. When a defendant fails to press a limitations defense, the defense does not become part of the case and the Government does not otherwise have the burden of proving that it filed a timely indictment. When a defendant does not press the defense, then, there is no error for an appellate court to correct—and certainly no plain error.
A defendant thus cannot successfully raise the statute-of-limitations defense in
*
*
*
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the Fifth Circuit.
It is so ordered.