First of all, a link to Borden v. United States is here. In the description, I said that only knowing intentional conduct can be considered a crime of violence under federal law. When speaking of federal law you are basically talking about three things (1) career offender, (2) Armed Career Offender, and Immigration law.
Believe it or not, each of these has a different definition of what a crime of violence is and they are housed in different parts of the United States Code.
The definition for crime of violence under career offender is in the United States Sentencing Guidelines §4B1.2.
§4B1.2. Definitions of Terms Used in Section 4B1.1
(a) The term “crime of violence” means any offense under federal or state law, punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, that
(1) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another, or
(2) is murder, voluntary manslaughter, kidnapping, aggravated assault, a forcible sex offense, robbery, arson, extortion, or the use or unlawful possession of a firearm described in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a) or explosive material as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 841(c).
The definition for crime of violence, or “violent felony” as it is used under armed career offender is in the United States Code 18 U. S. C. §924(e)(2)(B)(i).
(B)the term “violent felony” means any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, or any act of juvenile delinquency involving the use or carrying of a firearm, knife, or destructive device that would be punishable by imprisonment for such term if committed by an adult, that—
(i) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another; or
(ii) is burglary, arson, or extortion, involves use of explosives.
The definition of crime of violence in the context of immigration is located in 18 U.S.C. § 16(a).
The term “crime of violence” means—
(a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another.
In Borden v. United States the Supreme Court really tied up loose ends left by prior cases and held that a crime of violence must be accompanied by a knowing mens rea or mental state to commit a violent act.
The prior Supreme Court cases that preceded Borden were:
Begay v. United States, No.06-11543 (2008) (Read case here) which held that felony driving while intoxicated is not a “violent felony”.
Johnson v. United States, No. 12–1371 (2010) (called Johnson I) (Read case here) which held that force needs to be violent force capable of causing injury.
Johnson v. United States, No. 13-7120 (2015) (called Johnson II) (Read case here) held that the “residual clause” of 18 U. S. C. §924(e)(2)(B)(i) “or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another” was unconstitutionally vague and crimes that fit this description only no longer qualify as violent felonies.
Border established that it is not the result that controls crime of violence designation. For example, a fleeing bank robber who accidentally ran over a person in his getaway car does not commit a crime of violence, because he did not have the intent to direct violent force toward the victim. The use of force was accidental, and as such, such a crime can not be a predicate crime of violence.
If you have any questions contact me using the contact link in the header!
References: