Musacchio v. United States
The Court unanimously held that when reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence for a criminal offense, an appellate court should assess the elements of the alleged crime rather than the elements described in the jury instructions.· AI-written
577 U.S. 237 · No. 14-1095 · 2015 term · Roberts Court
Decided Jan 25, 2016 · argued Nov 30, 2015
Criminal procedure · Subconstitutional fair procedure: presentation, admissibility, or sufficiency of evidence
Majority opinion: Clarence Thomas
The voteMajority
9–09 in the majority, 0 in dissent
No dissent (9–0)
Affirmed. Musacchio lost.
What this ruling means
Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).
Musacchio was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Musacchio v. United States, 577 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified procedures for appellate review when the government does not object to an erroneous jury instruction that adds elements to a criminal offense as well as whether a defendant may raise a statute of limitations defense for the first time on appeal. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held that when reviewing a claim that the government failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence to substantiate a criminal offense, an appellate court should assess the elements of the alleged crime, rather than the elements that were described in jury instructions.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2015 term. Filled: the 9 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(9)
Clarence ThomasWrote the majority opinion
Sonia SotomayorJoined the majority
Ruth GinsburgJoined the majority
Elena KaganJoined the majority
Stephen BreyerJoined the majority
Anthony KennedyJoined the majority
John RobertsJoined the majority
Antonin ScaliaJoined the majority
Samuel AlitoJoined the majority
Dissent(0)
- None.
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- MusacchioDefendant
- Respondent
- United StatesUnited States
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
- Why it was taken
- Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- 18 USC 1030
- Kind of law
- Infrequently litigated statutes
- Decided by
- Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jan 25, 2016DecidedDecided · Decided 9–0: affirmed. Musacchio lost.
- Nov 30, 2015ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari). Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question.
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit: affirmed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Texas Northern U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
17 other argued cases since 1946 on subconstitutional fair procedure: presentation, admissibility, or sufficiency of evidence, newest first.
- Johnnie Corley v. United States556 U.S. 303Apr 6, 2009 · 556 U.S. 303Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- Moises Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon548 U.S. 331Jun 28, 2006 · 548 U.S. 331Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
- Johnny Lynn Old Chief v. United States519 U.S. 172Jan 14, 1997 · 519 U.S. 172Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- United States v. Anthony Salerno, et al.505 U.S. 317Jun 19, 1992 · 505 U.S. 317Criminal procedure8–18–1 band
- United States v. John H. Williams, Jr.504 U.S. 36May 4, 1992 · 504 U.S. 36Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- Carchman, Mercer County Prosecutor v. Nash473 U.S. 716Jul 2, 1985 · 473 U.S. 716Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
- Cuyler, Correctional Superintendent, et al. v. Adams449 U.S. 433Jan 21, 1981 · 449 U.S. 433Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
- Rogers v. United States422 U.S. 35Jun 17, 1975 · 422 U.S. 35Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Haines v. Kerner et al.404 U.S. 519Jan 13, 1972 · 404 U.S. 519Criminal procedure7–0Unanimous band
- Bushnell v. Ellis, Corrections Director366 U.S. 418May 22, 1961 · 366 U.S. 418Criminal procedure5–36–3 band
- Stirone v. United States361 U.S. 212Jan 11, 1960 · 361 U.S. 212Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- United States v. Shotwell Manufacturing Co. et al.355 U.S. 233Dec 16, 1957 · 355 U.S. 233Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
- United States ex rel. Lee Kum Hoy et al. v. Murff, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service355 U.S. 169Dec 9, 1957 · 355 U.S. 169Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Opper v. United States348 U.S. 84Dec 6, 1954 · 348 U.S. 84Criminal procedure7–18–1 band
- North v. Florida346 U.S. 932Jan 18, 1954 · 346 U.S. 932Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Blau v. United States340 U.S. 332Jan 15, 1951 · 340 U.S. 332Criminal procedure6–27–2 band
- Michelson v. United States335 U.S. 469Dec 20, 1948 · 335 U.S. 469Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.