McMillan v. Pennsylvania

Summary

The Court, in an opinion by Justice Rehnquist, upheld Pennsylvania's statute requiring a five-year minimum sentence when a sentencing judge finds visible possession of a firearm by a preponderance of the evidence. The State could treat visible possession as a sentencing factor rather than an offense element because the statute did not increase the statutory maximum, create a separate offense, or relieve the prosecution of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Neither a heightened standard of proof nor a jury finding was constitutionally required. Justice Marshall, joined by Justices Brennan and Blackmun, dissented, arguing that the Court must independently identify offense elements and that conduct carrying special stigma and punishment must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt; he declined to endorse a categorical distinction between aggravating and mitigating facts. Justice Stevens separately dissented, arguing that legislatures cannot evade the reasonable-doubt requirement by labeling prohibited conduct carrying special stigma and punishment a sentencing factor.