Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Wisconsin v. Mitchell

Supreme Court of the United States · 1993 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentSentencingBias-motivated crimesFirst Amendmentpenalty enhancementhate crimemotive

Facts

Mitchell was part of a group of young black men and boys gathered at an apartment complex in Kenosha, Wisconsin, discussing a scene from the movie "Mississippi Burning." After asking whether the group felt "hyped up to move on some white people," Mitchell pointed out a passing white boy and told the group to go get him. The group beat the boy severely, stole his tennis shoes, and left him unconscious and in a coma for four days. Mitchell was convicted of aggravated battery, and because the jury found he intentionally selected the victim because of race, the maximum penalty was increased under Wis. Stat. § 939.645.

Issue

Does Wisconsin's penalty-enhancement statute, which increases the maximum penalty when a defendant intentionally selects a victim because of race or other protected status, violate the First Amendment? Is the statute unconstitutionally overbroad because prior speech or associations may be used to prove discriminatory motive?

Rule

The First Amendment does not prohibit a State from enhancing the punishment for criminal conduct when the defendant intentionally selects the victim because of the victim's race or other protected status. Sentencing may take motive into account, and the evidentiary use of speech to prove motive or intent does not by itself create unconstitutional overbreadth.

🔒

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 Dayton, Ohio, Leo Carter punched a man outside a grocery store, breaking his jaw. Ohio has a statute increasing the maximum sentence for any assault if the defendant intentionally chose the victim because of the victim’s religion, and the jury finds Leo targeted the victim because he was wearing a yarmulke.

Leo argues the enhancement violates the First Amendment because the law increases punishment based on his viewpoint. What is the strongest response?

Explanation. The governing rule is that a State may enhance punishment for criminal conduct when the defendant intentionally selects the victim because of a protected characteristic. A physical assault is not protected expression, and the statute is directed at conduct, not speech. The fact that the enhancement turns on discriminatory motive does not make it unconstitutional, because motive has long been considered in sentencing.