Jerome v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1943 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsFederal Criminal LawStatutory InterpretationBank Robbery Act12 U.S.C. § 588bstate law incorporationfederal criminal statutesuniformity

Facts

Section 2(a) of the Bank Robbery Act punished whoever entered or attempted to enter a bank with intent to commit in it any felony or larceny. Petitioner entered a national bank in Vermont intending to utter a forged promissory note to defraud the bank. That conduct was a felony under Vermont law but was not a felony under any federal statute. His conviction therefore depended on whether "felony" in § 2(a) included state-law felonies.

Issue

Does the word "felony" in § 2(a) of the Bank Robbery Act include offenses that are felonies under state law, so that entering a bank with intent to commit such a state felony is a federal crime?

Rule

In the absence of a plain indication to the contrary, Congress is generally not presumed to make the application of a federal statute dependent on state law. In construing federal criminal statutes, courts should be especially reluctant to expand offenses beyond the clear statutory terms; accordingly, "felony" in § 2(a) of the Bank Robbery Act does not incorporate state felonies, but refers only to federal felonies affecting the banks protected by the Act.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Ohio, Lena Ortiz walked into a federally insured bank in Toledo intending to commit identity theft by using another person's personal information to open a fraudulent account. Ohio classifies that intended conduct as a felony, but no federal statute makes that intended act a felony in these circumstances. Prosecutors charge Lena under the federal bank-entry provision that punishes entering a protected bank with intent to commit in it any felony or larceny.

Is the federal charge most likely valid?

Explanation. The charge is not valid on these facts. The majority rule is that, absent a plain indication to the contrary, Congress is not presumed to make the application of a federal criminal statute depend on state law. In this bank-entry provision, "felony" does not incorporate state felonies. Instead, it refers only to federal felonies affecting the protected banks. Because Lena intended only a state-law felony and not a qualifying federal felony or larceny, the statute does not reach her conduct.