# Smith v. United States

> Supreme Court of the United States · August 9, 1993 · 508 U.S. 223

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9842127

## Case

- **Full name:** Smith v. United States
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** August 9, 1993
- **Citations:** 508 U.S. 223; 113 S. Ct. 2050; 124 L. Ed. 2d 138; 1993 U.S. LEXIS 3740
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Blackmun
- **Judges:** O'Connor, Blackmun, Scalia, Stevens, Souter
- **Cited by:** 1,336 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Reported abrogated on other grounds by Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995) — not on the Supreme Court's list.
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 1
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9842127

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that exchanging a firearm for drugs could support a conviction for “using” a firearm 44 “during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime” (first and second alterations in original) (quoting United States v. Stewart, 779 F.2d 538, 540 (9th Cir. 1985), overruled in pa…
- holding that “use” of a firearm included the exchange of a gun for drugs and noting that simply because “use as a weapon” is the first example “to come to mind when the phrase ‘uses ... a firearm’ is uttered does not preclude us from recognizing that there are other ‘uses’ tha…
- concluding that defendant “used” his firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) by attempting to trade it for drugs, but noting that “the defendant who ‘uses’ a firearm to scratch his head” cannot receive “punishment under § 924(c)(1) unless it facilitates or furthers the drug crime”
- recognizing that "induce, entice, [and] coerce, though not defined in the statute, are words of common usage that have plain and ordinary meanings."

## Opinion text

Justice Blackmun,
concurring.
I join the Court’s opinion in full because I understand the discussion in Part II-B not to foreclose the possibility that the “in relation to” language of 18 U. S. C. § 924 (c)(1) requires more than mere furtherance or facilitation of a crime of violence or drug-trafficking crime. I agree with the Court that because petitioner’s use of his MAC-10 meets any reasonable construction of the phrase, it is unnecessary to determine in this case the precise contours of “in relation to” as it appears in § 924(c)(1). See ante, at 238.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9842127. Public record. Not legal advice.