Supreme Court of the United States

Micheal Musacchio, Petitioner v. United States.

January 25, 2016577 U.S. 237

Summary

The Court resolved two questions created by the parties' failures to object below. It held that a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge in a criminal case is measured against the elements of the charged crime, not against an unobjected-to jury instruction that erroneously adds an element, because a jury instructed on all charged elements plus one more has made every finding due process requires. It further held that 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a)'s five-year limitations bar is a nonjurisdictional defense that must be raised in the district court, so it cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, and a court's failure to enforce an unraised limitations defense is not plain error. On those grounds the Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's judgment upholding Musacchio's Computer Fraud and Abuse Act convictions.

Holding

  • Whether a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge should be assessed against the elements of the charged crime or against a jury instruction that, without objection from the Government, erroneously adds an element to the charged offense.. Sufficiency of the evidence is assessed against the elements of the charged crime, not against the erroneously heightened command in the jury instruction; the Government's failure to object to the added element does not affect the standard of sufficiency review.
  • Whether a defendant may successfully raise the statute-of-limitations bar in 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a) for the first time on appeal.. No. Section 3282(a) is a nonjurisdictional defense that becomes part of the case only if the defendant raises it in the district court; a defendant cannot raise it for the first time on appeal, and a district court's failure to enforce an unraised limitations defense cannot be plain error.

Docket 14-1095

Cited authorities

Cited by

Read full opinionPDF