Supreme Court of the United States · 1974 · Federal Courts
Federal Courtsdue processsufficiency of evidenceno evidencecrucial elementstate convictioncontributing to delinquency of a minor
Facts
A 14-year-old girl bought a button reading "Copulation Not Masturbation" at the Head Shop in Manchester, New Hampshire, which appellant operated. Under the state court's understanding of the offense, the State had to produce evidence that appellant, knowing the girl to be a minor, personally sold her the button or personally caused another to sell it to her. The girl's testimony was the State's only evidence about the sale, and she testified only that she picked the button from a display card, paid some unidentified person 25 cents, and could not identify that person as appellant or say that appellant was present. Appellant's trial concession that he controlled the premises on the day of sale showed only that he operated the shop.
Issue
Whether due process permits appellant's conviction to stand when the trial record contains no relevant evidence that he personally sold the button to the minor, caused it to be sold to her, or was even aware of the sale, despite that element being crucial under the state court's own articulation of the offense.
Rule
A conviction based on a record lacking any relevant evidence as to a crucial element of the offense charged violates due process.
🔒
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
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Columbus, Ohio, Omar Bennett was convicted under a city ordinance that the state appellate court construed to require proof that he personally handed restricted vaping cartridges to a person under 18 or personally directed an employee to do so. At trial, the teenager testified only that she bought the cartridges from an unidentified cashier at Riverbend Smoke & Gifts and could not say whether Omar was present. Omar admitted he managed the shop that day.
If Omar seeks federal relief on due process grounds, what is the strongest argument?
Explanation. The governing rule is narrow: due process is violated when a conviction rests on a record lacking any relevant evidence as to a crucial element of the offense as defined by the state court. Here, the crucial element is Omar's personal sale or personal causation of the sale. The unidentified cashier and Omar's admission that he managed the premises do not supply relevant evidence of that element.