Washington v. Recuenco

Summary

The Supreme Court held that the failure to submit a sentencing factor to the jury, like the failure to submit an element, is not structural error and is therefore subject to harmless-error analysis. Recuenco's jury found he assaulted his wife while armed with a deadly weapon, but the trial judge imposed a three-year firearm enhancement based on his own finding that the weapon was a handgun; the State conceded this violated Blakely, and the Washington Supreme Court vacated the enhancement, holding Blakely error can never be harmless. The Court reversed, reasoning the case is indistinguishable from Neder and that assigning constitutional significance to the element/sentencing-factor distinction cannot be reconciled with Apprendi. Justice Kennedy concurred; Justice Stevens dissented, and Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justice Stevens, dissented, contending the jury's verdict was complete and the firearm enhancement amounted to conviction on an uncharged greater offense.