author: Per Curiam. Justice Ginsburg,

text:
    BELL v. CONE
    No. 04-394.
    Decided January 24, 2005
   Per Curiam.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted a writ of habeas corpus to respondent Gary Bradford Cone after concluding that the “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravating circumstance found by the jury at the sentencing phase of his trial was unconstitutionally vague, and that the Tennessee Supreme Court failed to cure any constitutional deficiencies on appeal. 359 F. 3d 785, 799 (2004). Because this result fails to accord to the state court the deference required by 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d), we grant the petition for certiorari and respondent’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and reverse.

I

Respondent killed Shipley Todd, 93, and his wife Cleopatra, 79, on August 10,1980, in their home at the conclusion of a 2-day crime spree. The killings were accomplished in a brutal and callous fashion: The elderly victims were “repeatedly beaten about the head until they died,” State v. Cone, 665 S. W. 2d 87, 90-91 (Tenn. 1984), and their bodies were subsequently discovered “horribly mutilated and cruelly beaten,” id., at 90. A Tennessee jury convicted respondent of, inter alia, two counts of murder in the first degree and two counts of murder in the first degree in the perpetration of a burglary. At the conclusion of the penalty phase of respondent’s trial, the jury unanimously found four aggravating circumstances and concluded that they outweighed the mitigating evidence. Respondent was sentenced to death.

The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed respondent’s convictions and sentence. Id., at 96. As relevant here, the court held that three of the aggravating circumstances found by the jury “were clearly shown by the evidence.” Id., at 94. With respect to the jury’s finding that the murders were “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel,” the court said:

“The jury also found that the murders in question were especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel in that they involved torture or depravity of mind as provided in [Tenn. Code Ann.] § 39—2—203(i)(5). The evidence abundantly established that both of the elderly victims had been brutally beaten to death by multiple crushing blows to the skulls. Blood was spattered throughout the house, and both victims apparently had attempted to resist, because numerous defensive wounds were found on their persons. The only excuse offered in the entire record for this unspeakably brutal conduct by the accused was that these elderly victims had at some point ceased to ‘cooperate’ with him in his ransacking of their home and in his effort to flee from arrest. As previously stated, it was stipulated by counsel for [respondent] that there was no issue of self-defense even remotely suggested. The deaths of the victims were not instantaneous, and obviously one had to be killed before the other. The terror, fright and horror that these elderly helpless citizens must have endured was certainly something that the jury could have taken into account in finding this aggravating circumstance.” Id., at 94-95.

Respondent twice sought relief from his conviction and sentence in collateral proceedings in state court, to no avail. In his second amended petition for postconviction relief, respondent raised 52 independent claims of constitutional error, including a contention that the “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravating circumstance was unconstitutionally vague under the Eighth Amendment. The state trial court held each of respondent’s claims barred by Tenn. Code Ann. §40-30-111 (1990), which limited the grounds that may be raised on collateral review to those not waived or previously determined in previous proceedings. The trial court explained that respondent’s constitutional challenge to the “heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravating circumstance, along with many other claims, was “clearly [a] re-statemen[t] of previous grounds heretofore determined and denied by the Tennessee Supreme Court upon Direct Appeal or the Court of Criminal Appeals upon the First Petition.” Cone v. State, No. P-06874 (Tenn. Crim. Ct., Dec. 16, 1993), p. 6. The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the denial of relief on all grounds. Cone v. State, 927 S. W. 2d 579, 582 (1995). The State Supreme Court denied respondent permission to appeal.

II

In 1997, respondent sought a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U. S. C. § 2254 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, again asserting a multitude of claims. The District Court denied relief; it held respondent’s vagueness challenge to the “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravating circumstance to be procedurally barred by respondent’s failure to raise it on direct appeal in state court. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit subsequently held that respondent was entitled to relief on another ground and did not consider respondent’s challenges to the aggravating circumstances found by the jury. Cone v. Bell, 243 F. 3d 961, 975 (2001). We reversed that judgment. Bell v. Cone, 535 U. S. 685, 702 (2002).

On remand, the same panel of the Sixth Circuit again granted respondent a writ of habeas corpus, this time with one judge dissenting, on the ground that the “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravator was unconstitutionally vague under the Eighth Amendment. The court first rejected petitioner’s argument that respondent proeedurally defaulted the claim in state court. Based on its understanding of state law, the court concluded that the State Supreme Court’s statutorily .mandated review of each death sentence, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-2-205(c)(1) (1982), necessarily included the consideration of constitutional deficiencies in the aggravating circumstances found by the jury and therefore that the issue was “fairly presented” to the state court, even if respondent did not raise it himself. 359 F. 3d, at 791-793. Judge Norris dissented on this point. Id., at 806.

Turning to the merits, the Sixth Circuit held that the state court’s affirmance of respondent’s sentence in light of the “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravating circumstance was “contrary to” the clearly established principles set forth in our decision in Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U. S. 420 (1980). The Court of Appeals allowed that “[n]o Supreme Court case has addressed the precise language at issue,” 359 F. 3d, at 795, and that no “Supreme Court decisio[n] is ‘on all fours’ with the instruction in Cone’s case,” id., at 796, but nevertheless concluded, in light of Godfrey and the series of cases that followed it, Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U. S. 356 (1988), Walton v. Arizona, 497 U. S. 639 (1990), and Shell v. Mississippi, 498 U. S. 1 (1990) (per curiam), that federal law dictated the conclusion that the State’s “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravator was unconstitutionally vague. 359 F. 3d, at 797. Lastly, the court rejected petitioner’s argument that the Tennessee Supreme Court cured any deficiency in the aggravating circumstance on direct appeal by reviewing the jury’s finding under the narrowed construction of the aggravator that it adopted in State v. Dicks, 615 S. W. 2d 126 (1981). 359 F. 3d, at 797.

hH t-H

A federal court may grant a writ of habeas corpus based on a claim adjudicated by a state court if the state-court decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1). A state court’s decision is “contrary to . . . clearly established Federal law” “if the state court applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in our cases,” or “if the state court confronts facts that are materially indistinguishable from a relevant Supreme Court precedent and arrives at a result opposite to ours.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U. S. 362, 405 (2000).

The law governing vagueness challenges to statutory aggravating circumstances was summarized aptly in Walton, supra, overruled on other grounds, Ring v. Arizona, 536 U. S. 584 (2002):

“When a federal court is asked to review a state court’s application of an individual statutory aggravating or mitigating circumstance in a particular case, it must first determine whether the statutory language defining the circumstance is itself too vague to provide any guidance to the sentencer. If so, then the federal court must attempt to determine whether the state courts have further defined the vague terms and, if they have done so, whether those definitions are constitutionally sufficient, i. e., whether they provide some guidance to the sentencer.” Walton, supra, at 654.

These principles were plain enough at the time the State Supreme Court decided respondent’s appeal. In Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U. S. 242 (1976), we upheld the aggravating circumstance that the murder was “ ‘especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel’ ” on the express ground that a narrowing construction had been adopted by that State’s Supreme Court. Id., at 255 (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.). And, in Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153 (1976), we refused to invalidate the aggravating circumstance that the murder was “‘outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman in that it involved torture, depravity of mind, or an aggravated battery to the victim,’ ” because “there [was] no reason to assume that the Supreme Court of Georgia will adopt ... an open-ended construction” that is potentially applicable to any murder. Id., at 201 (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.). See generally Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U. S. 764, 774-777 (1990) (reviewing eases).

Indeed, in Godfrey, 446 U. S. 420, the case on which the Court of Appeals relied in declaring the aggravating circumstance to be unconstitutionally vague, the controlling plurality opinion followed precisely this procedure. Like the court below, the plurality looked first to the language of the aggravating circumstance found by the jury and concluded that there was “nothing in these few words, standing alone, that implies any inherent restraint on the arbitrary and capricious infliction of the death sentence.” Id., at 428. But the plurality did not stop there: It next evaluated whether the Georgia Supreme Court “applied a constitutional construction” of the aggravating circumstance on appeal. Id., at 432. Because the facts of the case did not resemble those in which the state court had previously applied a narrower construction of the aggravating circumstance and because the state court gave no explanation for its decision other than to say that the verdict was “ ‘factually substantiated,’ ” the plurality concluded that it did not. Id., at 432-433. As we have subsequently explained, this conclusion was the linchpin of the Court’s holding: “Had the Georgia Supreme Court applied a narrowing construction of the aggravator, we would have rejected the Eighth Amendment challenge to Godfrey’s death sentence, notwithstanding the failure to instruct the jury on that narrowing construction.” Lambrix v. Singletary, 520 U. S. 518, 531 (1997). See also Walton, supra, at 653-654; Cartwright, supra, at 363-365 (refusing to countenance the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ affirmance of a death sentence based on a facially vague aggravating circumstance where that court had not adopted a narrowing construction of its aggravator when it affirmed the prisoner’s sentence).

In this case, however, the Sixth Circuit rejected the possibility that the Tennessee Supreme Court cured any error in the jury instruction by applying a narrowing construction of the statutory “heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravator. The court asserted that the State Supreme Court “did not apply, or even mention, any narrowing interpretation or cite to [sic] Dicks,” the case in which the State Supreme Court had adopted a narrowing construction of the aggravating circumstance. 359 F. 3d, at 797. “Instead,” the court said, “the [state] court simply, but explicitly, satisfied itself that the labels ‘heinous, atrocious, or cruel/ without more, applied to [respondent’s] crime.” Ibid.

We do not think that a federal court can presume so lightly that a state court failed to apply its own law. As we have said before, § 2254(d) dictates a “ ‘highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings, Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U. S. 320, 333, n. 7 (1997), which demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt.” Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U. S. 19, 24 (2002) (per curiam). To the extent that the Court of Appeals rested its decision on the state court’s failure to cite Dicks, it was mistaken. Federal courts are not free to presume that a state court did not comply with constitutional dictates on the basis of nothing more than a lack of citation. See Mitchell v. Esparza, 540 U. S. 12, 16 (2003) (per curiam); Early v. Packer, 537 U. S. 3, 8 (2002) (per curiam).

More importantly, however, we find no basis for the Court of Appeals’ statement that the state court “simply, but explicitly, satisfied itself that the labels ‘heinous, atrocious, or cruel/ without more, applied” to the murder. 359 F. 3d, at 797. The state court’s opinion does not disclaim application of that court’s established construction of the aggravating circumstance; the only thing that it states “explicitly” is that the evidence in this case supported the jury’s finding of the statutory aggravator. See Cone, 665 S. W. 2d, at 95 (stating that the aggravating circumstance was “indisputably established by the record”). As we explain below, the State Supreme Court had construed the aggravating circumstance narrowly and had followed that precedent numerous times; absent an affirmative indication to the contrary, we must presume that it did the same thing here. See Visciotti, supra, at 24 (stating the presumption that state courts “know and follow the law”); Lambrix, supra, at 532, n. 4; Walton, 497 U. S., at 653. That is especially true in a case such as this one, where the state court has recognized that its narrowing construction is constitutionally compelled and has affirmatively assumed the responsibility to ensure that the aggravating circumstance is applied constitutionally in each case. See State v. Pritchett, 621 S. W. 2d 127, 139, 140 (Tenn. 1981).

Even absent such a presumption in the state court’s favor, however, we would still.conclude in this case that the state court applied the narrower construction of the “heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravating circumstance. The State Supreme Court’s reasoning in this case closely tracked its rationale for affirming the death sentences in other eases in which it expressly applied a narrowed construction of the same “heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravator. Accord, Godfrey, supra, at 432 (holding that “[t]he circumstances of this case ... do not satisfy the criteria [for torture] laid out by the Georgia Supreme Court itself” in its cases construing the aggravating circumstance). The facts the court relied on to affirm the jury’s verdict — that the elderly victims attempted to resist, that their deaths were not instantaneous, that respondent’s actions toward them were “unspeakably brutal,” and that they endured “terror, fright and horror” before being killed, 665 S. W. 2d, at 95—match, almost exactly, the reasons the state court gave when it held the evidence in State v. Melson, 638 S. W. 2d 342, 367 (Tenn. 1982), to be sufficient to satisfy the torture prong of the narrowed “heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravating circumstance. See also Pritchett, supra, at 139 (finding the evidence to be insufficient to satisfy a narrowed construction of the aggravator where the victim’s death was “instantaneous”); State v. Campbell, 664 S. W. 2d 281, 284 (Tenn. 1984) (holding that evidence of the aggravator was “overwhelming” where an elderly murder victim was beaten to death with a blunt object and his hands showed that he had attempted to defend himself). Similarly, the state court’s findings that respondent’s victims had been “brutally beaten to death by multiple crushing blows to the skulls,” that “[bjlood was spattered throughout the house,” and that the victims were helpless, 665 S. W. 2d, at 94-95, accord with the reasons that the state court had previously found sufficient to support findings of depravity of mind. See Melson, supra, at 367; State v. Groseclose, 615 S. W. 2d 142, 151 (Tenn. 1981); Strouth v. State, 999 S. W. 2d 759, 766 (Tenn. 1999). In sum, a review of the state court’s previous decisions interpreting and applying the narrowed construction of the “heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravator leaves little doubt that the State Supreme Court applied that same construction in respondent’s case.

The only remaining question is whether the narrowing construction that the Tennessee Supreme Court applied was itself unconstitutionally vague. See Walton, supra, at 654; Godfrey, 446 U. S., at 428. It was not. In State v. Dicks, 615 S. W. 2d 126 (Tenn. 1981), the state court adopted the exact construction of the aggravator that we approved in Proffitt, 428 U. S., at 255: that the aggravator was “directed at 'the conscienceless or pitiless crime which is unnecessarily torturous to the victim,”’ Dicks, supra, at 132. See also Sochor v. Florida, 504 U. S. 527, 536 (1992). In light of Prof-fitt, we think this interpretation of the aggravator, standing alone, would be sufficient to overcome the claim that the aggravating circumstance applied by the state court was “contrary to” clearly established federal law under 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1).

The State Supreme Court’s subsequent application of this aggravating circumstance, as construed in Dicks, stands as further proof that it could be applied meaningfully to narrow the class of death-eligible offenders. Later in the year that Dicks was decided, the court elaborated on the meaning of the aggravator:

“Although the Tennessee aggravating circumstances [sic] [that the murder was heinous, atrocious, or cruel] does not contain the phrase, 'an aggravated battery to the victim[,]’ it is clear that a constitutional construction of this aggravating circumstance requires evidence that the defendant inflicted torture on the victim before death or that [the] defendant committed acts evincing a depraved state of mind; that the depraved state of mind or the torture inflicted must meet the test of heinous, atrocious, or cruel.” Pritchett, 621 S. W. 2d, at 139 (citation omitted).

With respect to the meaning of “torture,” the court held that the aggravator was not satisfied where the victim dies instantly, ibid., but that it was where “the uncontradicted proof shows that [the victim] had defensive injuries to her arms and hands, proving that there was time for her to realize what was happening, to feel fear, and to try to protect herself,” Melson, 638 S. W. 2d, at 367. Accord, Cartwright, 486 U. S., at 364-365 (approving the limitation of the “heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravating circumstance to killings in which the victim suffered “some kind of torture or serious physical abuse” prior to the murder). As to “depravity of mind,” the court held the fact that the defendant fired a second shotgun blast into a victim after he was dead to be insufficient as a matter of law, see Pritchett, supra, at 139 (explaining that the depravity in such an action falls short of that exhibited by the defendant in Godfrey, supra), but concluded that, “a killing wherein the victim is struck up to thirty times, causing an entire room to be covered with a spray of flying blood, and causing the victim’s brains to extrude through the gaping hole in her skull,” sufficed, Melson, supra, at 367. In light of these holdings, we are satisfied that the State’s aggravating circumstance, as construed by the Tennessee Supreme Court, ensured that there was a “principled basis” for distinguishing between those cases in which the death penalty was assessed and those cases in which it was not. Arave v. Creech, 507 U. S. 463, 474 (1993).

In sum, even assuming that the Court of Appeals was correct to conclude that the State’s statutory aggravating circumstance was facially vague, the court erred in presuming that the State Supreme Court failed to cure this vagueness by applying a narrowing construction on direct appeal. The state court did apply such a narrowing construction, and that construction satisfied constitutional demands by ensuring that respondent was not sentenced to death in an arbitrary or capricious manner. See Godfrey, supra, at 428. The state court’s affirmance of respondent’s sentence on this ground was therefore not “contrary to... clearly established Federal law,” 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1), and the Court of Appeals was without power to issue a writ of habeas corpus. We reverse the judgment of the Sixth Circuit and remand the case for further proceedings consistént with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Justice Ginsburg,

with whom Justice Souter and Justice Breyer join,

concurring.

The Sixth Circuit assumed that the Tennessee Supreme Court, on direct appeal, adjudicated the merits of respondent’s vagueness claim. See 359 F. 3d 785, 791-794 (2004); see also ante, at 451. This Court indulges the same assumption. See ante, at 456-457, 459 and this page. I agree with the Court that, once the highest court of a State has dispositively decided a point of law, it is not incumbent on that court to cite its precedential decision in every case thereafter presenting the same issue in order to demonstrate its adherence to the pathmarking decision.

Today’s decision, as I comprehend it, is confined to the situation the Sixth Circuit posited, one in which the state court has confronted and decided an issue governed by a prior ruling. This Court’s opinion, it bears emphasis, does not grapple with the following scenario: A state prisoner petitions for federal habeas review after exhausting his state remedies. In the anterior state proceeding, the prisoner raised multiple issues. The state court, in disposing of the case, left one or more of the issues unaddressed. There would be no warrant, in such a case, for an assumption that the state court, sub silentio, considered the issue and resolved it on the merits in accord with the State’s relevant law. Nothing in the record would discount the possibility that the issue was simply overlooked. A federal court would act arbitrarily if it assumed that an issue raised in state court was necessarily decided there, despite the absence of any indication that the state court itself adverted to the point.

       The jury found the following aggravating circumstances: (1) respondent had been convicted of one or more felonies involving the use or threat of violence to a person, (2) the murders were “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel in that they involved torture or depravity of mind,” (3) respondent committed the murders for the purpose of preventing a lawful arrest or prosecution, and (4) respondent knowingly created a risk of death to two or more persons, other than the victim murdered, during the murder. See State v. Cone, 665 S. W. 2d 87, 94-95 (Tenn. 1984).

       The state court rejected the jury’s finding that respondent “ ‘knowingly created a great risk of death to two (2) or more persons, other than the victim murdered, during his act of murder,’ ” on the ground that the considerable threat respondent posed to others earlier in the day was not sufficiently close in time to the murders. Based on the strength of the other aggravating circumstances before the jury, the court held this error to be “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id., at 95.

       Petitioner argues that the Sixth Circuit’s conclusion in this regard is in tension with the decisions of other Courts of Appeals, which have held that a petitioner must raise his constitutional claim in state court in order to preserve it, notwithstanding the existence of a mandatory-review statute. See Mu’min v. Pruett, 125 F. 3d 192, 197 (CA4 1997) (Virginia); Martinez-Villareal v. Lewis, 80 F. 3d 1301, 1306 (CA9 1996) (Arizona); Kornahrens v. Evatt, 66 F. 3d 1350, 1362 (CA4 1995) (South Carolina); Nave v. Delo, 62 F. 3d 1024, 1039 (CA8 1995) (Missouri); Julius v. Johnson, 840 F. 2d 1533, 1546 (CA11 1988) (Alabama). We find it unnecessary to express a view on this point. See 28 U. S. C. § 2254(b)(2) (an application for habeas corpus may be denied on the merits, notwithstanding a petitioner’s failure to exhaust in state court). We do emphasize that, as a general matter, the burden is on the petitioner to raise his federal claim in the state courts at a time when state procedural law permits its consideration on the merits, even if the state court could have identified and addressed the federal question without its having been raised. See Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U. S. 27, 30-32 (2004).

       The jury was instructed with respect to this aggravated circumstance as follows:
      “ ‘Heinous’ means extremely wicked or shockingly evil.
      “ ‘Atrocious’ means outrageously wicked and vile.
      “ ‘Cruel’ means designed to inflict a high degree of pain, utter indifference to, or enjoyment of, the suffering of others, pitiless.” 359 F. 3d, at 794.

       The court recognized that these cases postdated the Tennessee Supreme Court’s 1984 decision on direct appeal, but, relying on Stringer v. Black, 503 U. S. 222, 225 (1992) (which held that Cartwright did not announce a “new rule” of constitutional law because its resolution was dictated by Godfrey), concluded that these later cases were “not only material, but controlling” and required the conclusion that Tennessee’s “heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravating circumstance was unconstitutionally vague on its face. 359 F. 3d, at 795. We assume, without deciding, that the Court of Appeals was correct in this conclusion.

       In Ring v. Arizona, 536 U. S. 584 (2002), we held that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury, rather than a judge, to find the aggravating circumstance that renders a defendant death eligible. Id., at 609. Because
        Ring does not apply retroactively, Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U. S. 348, 358 (2004), this case does not present the question whether an appellate court may, consistently with Ring, cure the finding of a vague aggravating circumstance by applying a narrower construction.

       We find additional support for this conclusion in the fact that respondent’s argument to the State Supreme Court relied squarely on a case in which that court had expressly formulated its narrowing construction of the aggravating circumstance and had applied that construction to the benefit of the defendant. See Brief for Appellant in No. 02C019403CR00052 (Sup. Ct. Tenn. 1983), p. 20 (arguing, based on State v. Pritchett, 621 S. W. 2d 127 (Tenn. 1981), that “the State did not show ... that the victims suffered”). Likewise, the two cases the State relied upon in response to respondent’s argument also expressly applied a narrowing construction of the “heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravator. See Brief for Appellee in No. 02C019403CR00052 (Sup. Ct. Tenn. 1983), p. 34 (citing Pritchett, supra, and State v. Melson, 638 S. W. 2d 342, 367 (Tenn. 1982)).

       See also State v. Groseclose, 615 S. W. 2d 142, 151 (Tenn. 1981) (holding that raping and stabbing a victim, before killing her by locking her in a car trunk in the summer, satisfied the “heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravating circumstance); Strouth v. State, 999 S. W. 2d 759, 766 (Tenn. 1999) (quoting the State Supreme Court’s 1981 opinion denying rehearing, which held that cutting the throat of a victim already rendered unconscious demonstrated “depravity of mind” in that it was “cold-blooded, intentional, conscienceless and pitiless”); State v. Dicks, 615 S. W. 2d 126, 132 (Tenn. 1981) (affirming the jury’s application of the “heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravator to the same crime).


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Justice Scalia Justice Ginsburg,

license: Public Domain

text:
    SMITH v. MASSACHUSETTS
    No. 03-8661.
    Argued December 1, 2004
    Decided February 22, 2005

      Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, O’Connor, Souter, and Thomas, JJ., joined. Ginsburg, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Kennedy and Breyer, JJ., joined, post, p. 475.

      David Nathanson argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioner.

      Cathryn A. Neaves, Assistant Attorney General of Massachusetts, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Thomas F. Reilly, Attorney General, Dean A. Mazzone and Joseph M. Ditkoff, Special Assistant Attorneys General, and David M. Lieber, Assistant Attorney General.

      Sri Srinivasan argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance. With him on the brief were Acting Solicitor General Clement, Assistant Attorney General Wray, and Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben

         Andrew H. Schapiro and Pamela Harris filed a brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as amicus curiae urging reversal.
      Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the State of Idaho et al. by Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General of Idaho, and Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Lori A Fleming, and Jessica M. Borup, Deputy Attorneys General, Troy King, Attorney General of Alabama, Gregg D. Renkes, Attorney General of Alaska, Terry Goddard, Attorney General of Arizona, M. Jane Brady, Attorney General of Delaware, Mark J. Bennett, Attorney General of Hawaii, Lisa Madigan, Attorney General of Illinois, Tom Miller, Attorney General of Iowa, Mike McGrath, Attorney General of Montana, Jon Bruning, Attorney General of Nebraska, Brian Sandoval, Attorney General of Nevada, Kelly A. Ayotte, Attorney General of New Hampshire, Wayne Stenehjem, Attorney General of North Dakota, Jim Petro, Attorney General of Ohio, W A. Drew Edmondson, Attorney General of Oklahoma, Hardy Myers, Attorney General of Oregon, Gerald J. Pappert, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Patrick C. Lynch, Attorney General of Rhode Island, Mark L. Shurtleff, Attorney General of Utah, William H. Sorrell, Attorney General of Vermont, Jerry W. Kilgore, Attorney General of Virginia, and William E. Thor, State Solicitor General, and Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Attorney General of West Virginia; and for the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation by Kent S. Scheidegger and Charles L. Hobson.

   Justice Scalia

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Midway through a jury trial, the judge acquitted petitioner of one of the three offenses charged. The question presented in this case is whether the Double Jeopardy Clause forbade the judge to reconsider that acquittal later in the trial.

I.

Petitioner Melvin Smith was tried before a jury in the Superior Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts, on charges relating to the shooting of his girlfriend’s cousin. The indictments charged three counts: armed assault with intent to murder; assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon; and unlawful possession of a firearm. The “firearm” element of the last offense requires proof that the weapon had a barrel “less than 16 inches” in length. See Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., ch. 140, § 121 (West 2002) (definition of “firearm”); eh. 269, § 10(a) (West 2000). The indictment in petitioner’s case so charged. Petitioner’s girlfriend was tried before the same jury as an accessory after the fact.

The victim testified at trial that petitioner had shot him with “a pistol,” specifically “a revolver” that “appeared to be a .32 or a .38.” App. 12, 14. The prosecution introduced no other evidence about the firearm.

At the conclusion of the prosecution’s case, petitioner moved for a required finding of not guilty on the firearm count, see Mass. Rule Crim. Proc. 25(a) (2002), in part because the Commonwealth had not proved that the gun barrel was less than 16 inches. At sidebar, after hearing argument from the prosecutor, the trial judge granted the motion, reasoning that there was “not a scintilla of evidence” that petitioner had possessed a weapon with a barrel length of less than 16 inches. App. 21. The trial court marked petitioner’s motion with the handwritten endorsement “Filed and after hearing, Allowed,” and the allowance of the motion was entered on the docket. Consolidated Brief and Record Appendix for Defendant in No. 00-P-1215 (Mass. App. Ct.), p. A.21; App. 3. The sidebar conference then concluded, and the prosecution rested. The judge did not notify the jury of petitioner’s acquittal on the firearm count.

The defense case then proceeded. Petitioner’s codefend-ant presented one witness, and both defendants then rested. During the short recess before closing arguments, the prosecutor brought to the court’s attention a Massachusetts precedent under which (he contended) the victim’s testimony about the kind of gun sufficed to establish that the barrel was shorter than 16 inches. He requested that the court defer ruling on the sufficiency of the evidence until after the jury verdict. The judge agreed, announcing orally that she was “reversing” her previous ruling and allowing the firearm-possession count to go to the jury. Id., at 75. Corresponding notations were made on the original of petitioner’s motion and on the docket.

The jury convicted petitioner on all three counts, though it acquitted his codefendant of the accessory charge. Petitioner then submitted to a bench trial on an additional repeat-offender element of the firearm-possession charge; the judge found him guilty. Petitioner received a sentence of 10 to 12 years’ incarceration on the firearm-possession charge, concurrent with his sentence on the other counts.

Petitioner sought review in the Appeals Court of Massachusetts. That court affirmed, holding that the Double Jeopardy Clause was not implicated because the trial judge’s correction of her ruling had not subjected petitioner to a second prosecution or proceeding. It also rejected petitioner’s argument that the trial judge’s initial ruling was final because Massachusetts Rule of Criminal Procedure 25(a) required the judge to decide petitioner’s motion when it was made, without reserving decision; the court reasoned that the Rule , does not preclude the judge from reconsidering. 58 Mass. App. 166, 170-171, 788 N. E. 2d 977, 982-983 (2003).

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts denied further appellate review. 440 Mass. 1104, 797 N. E. 2d 380 (2003). We granted certiorari. 542 U. S. 903 (2004).

II

Although the common-law protection against double jeopardy historically applied only to charges on which a jury had rendered a verdict, see, e. g., 2 M. Hale, Pleas of the Crown *246, we have long held that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits reexamination of a court-decreed acquittal to the same extent it prohibits reexamination of an acquittal by jury verdict. See Richardson v. United States, 468 U. S. 317, 325, n. 5 (1984); Sanabria v. United States, 437 U. S. 54, 64, n. 18 (1978); United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U. S. 564, 573 (1977); United States v. Sisson, 399 U. S. 267, 290 (1970). This is so whether the judge’s ruling of acquittal comes in a bench trial or, as here, in a trial by jury. See Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U. S. 141, 143 (1962) (per curiam); Sanabria, supra, at 77-78; Martin Linen, supra, at 565-566, 574-575.

Our cases have made a single exception to the principle that acquittal by judge precludes reexamination of guilt no less than acquittal by jury: When a jury returns a verdict of guilty and a trial judge (or an appellate court) sets aside that verdict and enters a judgment of acquittal, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not preclude a prosecution appeal to reinstate the jury verdict of guilty. United States v. Wilson, 420 U. S. 332, 352-353 (1975). But if the prosecution has not yet obtained a conviction, further proceedings to secure one are impermissible: “[Subjecting the defendant to postacquittal factfinding proceedings going to guilt or innocence violates the Double Jeopardy Clause.” Smalis v. Pennsylvania, 476 U. S. 140, 145 (1986).

When the judge in this case first granted petitioner’s motion, there had been no jury verdict. Submission of the firearm count to the jury plainly subjected petitioner to further “factfinding proceedings going to guilt or innocence,” prohibited by Smalis following an acquittal. The first question, then, is whether the judge’s initial ruling on petitioner’s motion was, in fact, a judgment of acquittal.

It certainly appeared to be. Massachusetts Rule of Criminal Procedure 25(a) directs the trial judge to enter a finding of not guilty “if the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to sustain a conviction.” An order entering such a finding thus meets the definition of acquittal that our double-jeopardy cases have consistently used: It “actually represents a resolution, correct or not, of some or all of the factual elements of the offense charged.” Martin Linen, supra, at 571; accord, e. g., Price v. Vincent, 538 U. S. 634, 640 (2003); Burks v. United States, 437 U. S. 1, 10 (1978).

The Commonwealth contends that the grant of a motion for a required finding of not guilty in a jury trial is a purely legal determination, the factfinding function being reserved to the jury. Brief for Respondent 14 (citing Commonwealth v. Lowder, 432 Mass. 92, 96-97, 731 N. E. 2d 510, 515 (2000)). Thus, the Commonwealth reasons, jeopardy did not terminate midtrial on any of the three counts, since neither judge nor jury had rendered a factual determination that would bring jeopardy to an end. We rejected identical reasoning in Martin Linen, supra, holding that jeopardy ends when, following discharge of a hung jury, a judge grants a motion for judgment of acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29. Rule 29 created the judge-ordered “judgment of acquittal” in place of the directed verdict, which was at least fictionally returned by the jury at the judge’s direction, rather than coming from the judge alone. But, we said in Martin Linen, change in nomenclature and removal of the jury’s theoretical role make no difference; the Rule 29 judgment of acquittal is a substantive determination that the prosecution has failed to carry its burden. Thus, even when the jury is the primary factfinder, the trial judge still resolves elements of the offense in granting a Rule 29 motion in the absence of a jury verdict. See Martin Linen, supra, at 571-575.

The same is true here. (Indeed, Massachusetts patterned its Rule 25 on Federal Rule 29 and adopted prior directed-verdict practice without change. See Lowder, supra, at 95, 731 N. E. 2d, at 514.) Massachusetts’ characterization of the required finding of not guilty as a legal rather than factual determination is, “as a matter of double jeopardy law, . . . not binding on us,” Smalis, supra, at 144, n. 5; what matters is that, as the Massachusetts Rules authorize, the judge “evaluated the [Commonwealth’s] evidence and determined that it was legally insufficient to sustain a conviction.” Martin Linen, supra, at 572.

HH

Having concluded that the judge acquitted petitioner of the firearm-possession charge, we must turn to the more difficult question whether the Double Jeopardy Clause permitted her to reconsider that acquittal once petitioner and his codefendant had rested their cases.

It is important to note, at the outset, that the facts of this case gave petitioner no reason to doubt the finality of the state court’s ruling. The prosecutor did not make or reserve a motion for reconsideration, or seek a continuance that would allow him to provide the court with favorable authority. Rather, the sidebar conference concluded, the court asked the prosecutor if he had “any further evidence,” and he replied, “No. At this point, the Commonwealth rests their case.” App. 22. Nor did the court’s ruling appear on its face to be tentative. The trial court was not permitted by Massachusetts procedure to defer ruling on petitioner’s motion, Mass. Rule Grim. Proc. 25(a), or to require the defendants to go forward with their cases while the prosecution reserved the right to present more evidence, Commonwealth v. Cote, 15 Mass. App. 229, 242, 444 N. E. 2d 1282, 1290-1291 (1983). And when the prosecutor suggested that he be given a chance to reopen his case before the defendants proceeded, the court rejected the suggestion because it was time to rule on petitioner’s motion. App. 22; n. 1, supra.

Was this apparently final ruling in fact final? We think, and petitioner does not dispute, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 5, that as a general matter state law may prescribe that a judge’s midtrial determination of the sufficiency of the State’s proof can be reconsidered. Cf. Pennsylvania v. Goldhammer, 474 U. S. 28, 30 (1985) (per curiam) (state law regarding appeal-ability may affect defendant’s expectation that a sentence is final for double-jeopardy purposes). We can find no instance in which a State has done this by statute or rule, but some state courts have held, as a matter of common law or in the exercise of their supervisory power, that a court-directed judgment of acquittal is not effective until it' is signed and entered in the docket, Harden v. State, 160 Ga. App. 514, 515, 287 S. E. 2d 329, 331 (1981), until a formal order is issued, State v. Collins, 112 Wash. 2d 303, 308-309, 771 P. 2d 350, 353 (1989), or until the motion hearing is concluded, Watson v. State, 410 So. 2d 207, 209 (Fla. App. 1982).

At the time of petitioner’s trial, however, Massachusetts had not adopted any such rule of nonfinality. Its Rules of Criminal Procedure provided that only clerical errors in a judgment or order, or errors “arising from oversight or omission,” were subject to correction at any time. Mass. Rule Crim. Proc. 42 (2002). Massachusetts cites a few commonwealth cases supporting the general proposition that interlocutory rulings (rulings on pretrial motions, evidentiary rulings, and the like) are subject to reconsideration. But it is far from obvious that this principle extends to entry of a required finding of not guilty under Rule 25 (or to its common-law predecessor, the directed verdict) — which on its face, at least, purports not to be interlocutory but to end the case. We think much more was required here.

It may suffice for an appellate court to announce the state-law rule that midtrial acquittals are tentative in a case where reconsideration of the acquittal occurred at a stage in the trial where the defendant’s justifiable ignorance of the rule could not possibly have caused him prejudice. But when, as here, the trial has proceeded to the defendant’s presentation of his case, the possibility of prejudice arises. The seeming dismissal may induce a defendant to present a defense to the undismissed charges when he would be better advised to stand silent. Many jurisdictions still follow the traditional rule that after trial or on appeal, sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenges are reviewed on the basis of the entire trial record, even if the defendant moved for acquittal when the prosecution rested and the court erroneously denied that motion. E. g., Smith v. State, 509 P. 2d 1391, 1397 (Okla. Crim. App. 1973); Deal v. State, 657 P. 2d 404, 405 (Alaska App. 1983) (per curiam). See generally Comment, The Motion for Acquittal: A Neglected Safeguard, 70 Yale L. J. 1151, 1152-1158 (1961). In these jurisdictions, the defendant who puts on a case runs “the risk that ... he will bolster the Government case enough for it to support a verdict of guilty.” McGautha v. California, 402 U. S. 183, 215 (1971). The defendant’s evidence “may lay the foundation for otherwise inadmissible evidence in the Government’s initial presentation or. provide corroboration for essential elements of the Government’s case.” United States v. Calderon, 348 U. S. 160, 164, n. 1 (1954) (citation omitted). In all jurisdictions, moreover, false assurance of acquittal on one count may induce the defendant to present defenses to the remaining counts that are inadvisable — for example, a defense that entails admission of guilt on the acquitted count.

The Double Jeopardy Clause’s guarantee cannot be allowed to become a potential snare for those who reasonably rely upon it. If, after a facially unqualified midtrial dismissal of one count, the trial has proceeded to the defendant’s introduction of evidence, the acquittal must be treated as final, unless the availability of reconsideration has been plainly established by pre-existing rule or case authority expressly applicable to midtrial rulings on the sufficiency of the evidence. That requirement was not met here. The Commonwealth has failed to show that under state procedure as it existed at the time of petitioner’s trial, the trial court’s ruling on the motion for a required finding of not guilty was automatically, or even presumptively, nonfinal. At most it has shown that the ruling was wrong because the Commonwealth’s evidence was, as a matter of law, sufficient — a point that the dissent emphasizes, echoing the opinion below. See post, at 476-477, 479. But any contention that the Double Jeopardy Clause must itself (even absent provision by the State) leave open a way of correcting legal errors is at odds with the well-established rule that the bar will attach to a preverdict acquittal that is patently wrong in law. See, e. g., Smalis, 476 U. S., at 144, n. 7; Sanabria, 437 U. S., at 68-69, 75, 78; Martin Linen, 430 U. S., at 571; Fong Foo, 369 U. S., at 143.

Massachusetts argues that if the Double Jeopardy Clause does not allow for reconsideration, every erroneous grant of a directed-verdict motion will be unremediable, even one attributable to mistaken expression that is promptly corrected. We think not. Double-jeopardy principles have never been thought to bar the immediate repair of a genuine error in the announcement of an acquittal, even one rendered by a jury. See M. Friedland, Double Jeopardy 61 (1969); King v. Parkin, 1 Mood. 45, 46-47, 168 Eng. Rep. 1179, 1180 (1824). And of course States can protect themselves still further against the “occasional errors” of law that the dissent thinks “inevitabl[e]” in the course of trial, post, at 478, by rendering midtrial acquittals nonfinal. (Massachusetts, as we have observed, has specifically provided for the correction of mistaken utterances or scrivener’s errors, but not for the reconsideration of legal conclusions. See Mass. Rule Crim. Proc. 42 (2002).)

Prosecutors are not without protection against ill-considered acquittal rulings. States can and do craft procedural rules that allow trial judges “the maximum opportunity to consider with care a pending acquittal motion,” Martin Linen, supra, at 574, including the option of deferring consideration until after the verdict. See, e. g., D. C. Super. Ct. Crim. Proc. Rule 29(b) (2003); N. Y. Crim. Proc. Law Ann. § 290.10(1)(b) (West 2002); W. Va. Rule Crim. Proc. 29(b) (2004). (At least one State has altogether precluded midtrial acquittals by the court. See Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 175.381(1) (2001).) Moreover, a prosecutor can seek to persuade the court to correct its legal error before it rules, or at least before the proceedings move forward. See Price v. Vincent, 538 U. S., at 637-638, 642-643, and n. 1. Indeed, the prosecutor in this case convinced the judge to reconsider her acquittal ruling on the basis of legal authority he had obtained during a 15-minute recess before closing argu-merits. See App. 71-72, 74. Had he sought a short continuance at the time of the acquittal motion, the matter could have been resolved satisfactorily before petitioner went forward with his case.

* * *

The judgment of the Appeals Court of Massachusetts is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Justice Ginsburg,

with whom The Chief Justice, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Breyer join,

dissenting.

Does the Double Jeopardy Clause bar the States from allowing trial judges to reconsider a midtrial grant of a motion to acquit on one or more but fewer than all counts of an indictment? The Court unanimously answers “No.” See ante, at 470 (“[A]s a general matter state law may prescribe that a judge’s midtrial determination of the sufficiency of the State’s proof can be reconsidered.”). A State may provide for such reconsideration, the Court also recognizes, by legislation or by judicial rule, common-law decision, or exercise of supervisory power. See ante, at 470-471. According to the Appeals Court of Massachusetts, the Commonwealth has so provided through its decisional law. 58 Mass. App. 166, 171, 788 N. E. 2d 977, 983 (2003); see Commonwealth v. Haskell, 438 Mass. 790, 792, 784 N. E. 2d 625, 628 (2003) (“A judge’s power to reconsider his own decisions during the pendency of a case is firmly rooted in the common law....”). The view held by the Massachusetts court on this issue is hardly novel. See, e. g., United States v. LoRusso, 695 F. 2d 45, 53 (CA2 1982) (“A district court has the inherent power to reconsider and modify its interlocutory orders prior to the entry of judgment....”); cf. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 54(b) (Absent “entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties,” “any order or other form of decision, however designated, which adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties, and the order or other form of decision is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.”).

Nevertheless, the trial court here was locked into its on-the-spot error, the Court maintains, because “the availability of reconsideration [had not] been plainly established by pre-existing rule or case authority expressly applicable to midtrial rulings on the sufficiency of the evidence.” Ante, at 473. Otherwise, according to the Court, “[t]he Double Jeopardy Clause’s guarantee [would] become a potential snare for those who reasonably rely upon it.” Ibid.

I agree that, as a trial unfolds, a defendant must be accorded a timely, fully informed opportunity to meet the State’s charges. I would so hold as a matter not of double jeopardy, but of due process. See Gray v. Netherland, 518 U. S. 152, 171 (1996) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (“Basic to due process in criminal proceedings is the right to a full, fair, potentially effective opportunity to defend against the State’s charges.”). On the facts presented here, however, as the Massachusetts Appeals Court observed, see 58 Mass. App., at 171, 788 N. E. 2d, at 983, defendant-petitioner Smith suffered no prejudice fairly attributable to the trial court’s error.

The trial judge in Smith’s case acted impatiently and made a mistake at the close of the Commonwealth’s case. Cutting short the prosecutor’s objections, see App. 20-22, she granted Smith's motion for a “required finding of not guilty” on one of the three charges contained in the indictment, unlawful possession of a firearm, id., at 20. She did so on the ground that the Commonwealth had failed to prove an essential element of the crime, i. e., that the barrel of the gun Smith was charged with possessing was less than 16 inches. See Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., ch. 269, § 10(a) (West 2000) (rendering possession of a “firearm,” unless exempted, unlawful); ch. 140, § 121 (West 2002) (defining “firearm” as a “pistol” or “revolver” with a barrel length “less than 16 inches”). The ruling for Smith was endorsed on the motion and recorded on the docket, but it was not communicated to the jury.

The trial judge corrected her error the same day it was made. She did so in advance of closing arguments and her charge to the jury. See App. 71-74. The trial judge retracted her initial ruling and denied the motion for a required finding of not guilty because the prosecutor had called to her attention a decision of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts directly on point, Commonwealth v. Sperrazza, 372 Mass. 667, 363 N. E. 2d 673 (1977). In that case, Massachusetts’ highest court held that a jury may infer a barrel length of less than 16 inches from testimony that the weapon in question was a revolver or handgun. Id., at 670, 363 N. E. 2d, at 675. Here, there was such testimony. The victim in Smith’s case had testified that the gun he saw in the defendant’s hand was a “.32 or .38” caliber “pistol.” App. 12. The trial court’s new ruling based on Sperrazza was entered on the docket, Smith did not move to reopen the case, and the jury convicted him on all charges.

Smith urges that our decision in Smalis v. Pennsylvania, 476 U. S. 140 (1986), controls this case. I disagree. In Smalis, the Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause bars appellate review of a trial court’s grant of a motion to acquit, because reversal would lead to a remand for further trial proceedings. Id., at 146. An appeal, including an interlocutory appeal, moves a case from a court of first instance to an appellate forum, and necessarily signals that the trial court has ruled with finality on the appealed issue or issues. A trial court’s reconsideration of its initial decision to grant a motion, on the other hand, occurs before the court of first instance has disassociated itself from the case or any issue in it. Trial courts have historically revisited midtrial rulings, as earlier noted, see supra, at 475-476, for the practical exigencies of trial mean that judges inevitably will commit occasional errors. In contrast, the government traditionally could pursue no appeal at any stage of a criminal case, however mistaken the trial court’s prodefense ruling. See United States v. Scott, 437 U. S. 82, 84-86 (1978) (discussing the evolution of the Government’s right to appeal). This Court has long recognized the distinction between appeals and continuing proceedings before the initial tribunal prior to the rendition of a final adjudication. Compare Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 54(b), quoted supra, at 475-476, and Swisher v. Brady, 438 U. S. 204, 215-216 (1978) (no double jeopardy bar to the State’s exceptions to a master’s findings where an accused juvenile “is subjected to a single proceeding which begins with a master’s hearing and culminates with an adjudication by a judge”), with Kepner v. United States, 195 U. S. 100, 133 (1904) (Double Jeopardy Clause bars the Government’s appeal to a higher court after acquittal of the defendant by the “court of first instance”).

Nor is Massachusetts Rule of Criminal Procedure 25(a) (2002) dispositive here. That Rule states: “If a defendant’s motion for a required finding of not guilty is made at the close of the Commonwealth’s evidence, it shall be ruled upon at that time” (Emphasis added.) While Rule 25(a) plainly instructs an immediate ruling on the motion, it says nothing about reconsideration.

The Appeals Court of Massachusetts determined that Rule 25(a) did not place the incorrect midtrial ruling beyond the trial court’s capacity to repair its error. Rule 25(a)’s demand for an immediate ruling rather than reservation of the question, the Appeals Court said, “protects a defendant’s right to insist that the Commonwealth present proof of every element of the crime with which he is charged before he decides whether to rest or to introduce proof.” 58 Mass. App., at 171, 788 N. E. 2d, at 982-983 (quoting Commonwealth v. Cote, 15 Mass. App. 229, 240, 444 N. E. 2d 1282, 1289 (1983)). That protection was accorded the defendant here, the court observed, for the Commonwealth’s evidence, presented before the “required finding of not guilty” motion was made and granted, in fact sufficed to prove every element of the firearm possession charge. See 58 Mass. App., at 171, 788 N. E. 2d, at 983. Rule 25(a) does not import more, the Appeals Court indicated. Because the jury remained seated with no break in the trial, and the defendant retained the opportunity to counter the Commonwealth’s case, that court concluded, neither Rule 25(a) nor the Double Jeopardy Clause froze as final the erroneous midtrial ruling on the firearm possession charge. I would not pretend to comprehend Rule 25(a) or Massachusetts’ decisional law regarding state practice better than the Massachusetts Appeals Court did.

In sum, Smith was subjected to a single, unbroken trial proceeding in which he was denied no opportunity to air his defense before presentation of the case to the jury. I would not deny prosecutors in such circumstances, based on a trial judge’s temporary error, one full and fair opportunity to present the State’s case.

       Although, before the judge ruled, the prosecutor had said that he would “be requesting to .reopen and allow [the victim] to testify to” the barrel length, App. 22, he made no motion to reopen before resting his case.

       The Rule provides in pertinent part:
      “The judge on motion of a defendant or on his own motion shall enter a finding of not guilty of the offense charged in an indictment or complaint or any part thereof after the evidence on either side is closed if the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to sustain a conviction on the charge. If a defendant’s motion for a required finding of not guilty is made at the close of the Commonwealth’s evidence, it shall be ruled upon at that time.” (Emphasis added.)

       It is of no moment that jeopardy continued on the two assault charges, for which the jury remained empaneled. Double-jeopardy analysis focuses on the individual “offence” charged, U. S. Const., Amdt. 5, and our cases establish that jeopardy may terminate on some counts even as it continues on others. See, e. g., Price v. Georgia, 398 U. S. 323, 329 (1970).

       The dissent emphasizes that the acquittal was reconsidered “before the court of first instance ha[d] disassociated itself from the case or any issue in it,” whereas in Smalis v. Pennsylvania, 476 U. S. 140 (1986), the government sought reconsideration by appealing. Post, at 477-478 (opinion of Ginsburg, J.). That distinction is not a relevant one. Smalis squarely held, not that further factfinding proceedings were barred because there had been an appeal, but that appeal was barred because further factfinding proceedings before the trial judge (the factfinder who had pronounced the acquittal) were impermissible. 476 U. S., at 145. Likewise, we recognized in Justices of Boston Municipal Court v. Lydon, 466 U. S. 294 (1984), that in a “two-tier” trial system amounting to “‘a single, continuous course of judicial proceedings,’ ” acquittal at the first stage cannot be reconsidered later in the two-tier process. Id., at 309, 312. These cases establish that an acquittal, once final, may not be reconsidered on appeal or otherwise.
      The dissent misses the point of Swisher v. Brady, 438 U. S. 204 (1978), which found no double-jeopardy bar to a judge’s review of a master’s findings. This was not a “recogni[tion of] the distinction between appeals and continuing proceedings before the initial tribunal,” post, at 478, but rather a recognition that the initial jeopardy does not end until there is a final decision. See 438 U. S., at 216 (“[I]t is for the State, not the parties, to designate and empower the factfinder and adjudicator. And here Maryland has conferred those roles only on the Juvenile Court judge. Thus, regardless of which party is initially favored by the master’s proposals, ... the judge is empowered to accept, modify, or reject those proposals”). The dissent is quite right that the taking of an appeal “necessarily signals” the finality of the order appealed, post, at 477; that does not establish, however, that the absence of an appeal necessarily connotes the nonfinality that differentiates the master’s finding in Swisher from the midtrial acquittal in this case.

       In Price v. Vincent, 538 U. S. 634 (2003), a habeas case presenting facts similar to those here, the judge granted a .partial acquittal but reconsidered before the trial proceeded, and the Michigan courts concluded that no double-jeopardy violation had occurred. Id., at 637-638. We held that conclusion to be not “an unreasonable application of . . . Federal law,” 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1), in part because, as the Michigan Supreme Court observed, “no trial proceedings took place with respondent laboring under the mistaken impression that he was not facing the possibility of conviction for” the purportedly acquitted charge. 538 U. S., at 642-643, and n. 1.

       In multiple-defendant cases like this one, an apparent final dismissal of one defendant may also cause the others to alter their cases in harmful ways. They would, for example, proceed under the mistaken belief that they need no longer fear the acquitted defendant’s assertion of a defense antagonistic to their own, and might assume that the acquitted defendant would become available as a defense witness. Cf. Washington v. Texas, 388 U. S. 14, 22-23 (1967) (discussing reasons to allow testimony of a purported accomplice after accomplice’s acquittal). While the potential effect upon codefendants has no bearing upon this petitioner’s double-jeopardy claim, it does confirm the wisdom of the rule we adopt.

       The dissent goes to great lengths to establish that there was no prejudice here, since the acquittal was legally wrong and the defendant was deprived of no available defense. See post, at 476-480. But the Double Jeopardy Clause has never required prejudice beyond the very exposure to a second jeopardy. To put it differently: Requiring someone to defend against a charge of which he has already been acquitted is prejudice per se for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause — even when the acquittal was erroneous because the evidence was sufficient. See, e. g., Sanabria v. United States, 437 U. S. 54, 77-78 (1978). Of course it is not even clear that the dissent’s due-process analysis would acknowledge prejudice when a midtrial acquittal was correct when rendered, so long as evidence sufficient to sustain the charge was eventually introduced (after the acquittal and during the defendant’s case, see supra, at 472). Our double-jeopardy cases make clear that an acquittal bars the prosecution from seeking “another opportunity to supply evidence which it failed to muster” before jeopardy terminated. Burks v. United States, 437 U. S. 1, 11 (1978).

       The other charges, on which no motion to acquit was made, were assault with intent to murder, and assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon.

       Cf. Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 29(b) (providing that a trial court may reserve decision on a defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence until after the jury has returned, a verdict). Several States follow the federal model. See, e. g., Alaska Rule Crim. Proc. 29(b) (2004); Del. Super. Ct. Rule Crim. Proc. 29(b) (2004); Iowa Rule Crim. Proc. 2.19(8)(b) (2004); N. Y. Crim. Proc. Law Ann. §290.10(1) (West 2002); W. Va. Rule Crim. Proc. 29(b) (2004).

       Counsel for petitioner suggested at oral argument that the protection is more theoretical than real, for “what [judges] do as ... a matter of practice in Massachusetts is they simply deny [the motion].” Tr. of Oral Arg. 56 (also noting that the motion to acquit may be renewed at the close of defendant’s case and after the jury has returned a verdict).

       The Court hypothesizes that dismissal of one count might affect a defendant’s course regarding the undismissed charges. Ante, at 472. The Appeals Court addressed that prospect concretely: Defendant Smith “has not suggested that the initial allowance of the motion affected his trial strategy with regard to the other charges.” 58 Mass. App. 166, 171, 788 N. E. 2d 977, 983 (2003). Further, there is not even the slightest suggestion that Smith’s codefendant, who was acquitted by the jury, “alter[ed] [her case] in harmful ways.” But see ante, at 472, n. 6.


author: Justice Thomas

text:
    STEWART v. DUTRA CONSTRUCTION CO.
    No. 03-814.
    Argued November 1, 2004
    Decided February 22, 2005

      Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all other Members joined, except Rehnquist, C. J., who took no part in the decision of the case.

      David B. Kaplan argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Thomas M. Bond, David W. Robertson, and Michael F. Sturley.

      Lisa S. Blatt argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With her on the brief were former Solicitor General Olson, Deputy Solicitor General Hungar, Howard M. Radzely, Allen H. Feldman, and Mark S. Flynn.

      Frederick E. Connelly, Jr., argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Harvey Weiner and John J. O’Connor

       Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the Association of Trial Lawyers of America by John W. deGravelles and David S. Casey, Jr.; for Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., et al. by James Patrick

        Cooney; and for the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America by John R. Hillsman and John T. DeCarlo.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the Signal Mutual Indemnity Association by John J. Walsh; and for T. W. LaQuay Dredging, Inc., by Gus David Oppermann V.

   Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question in this case is whether a dredge is a “vessel” under § 2(3)(G) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA), 44 Stat., pt. 2, p. 1425, as added by § 2(a) of Pub. L. 98-426, 33 U. S. C. § 902(3)(G). We hold that it is.

I

As part of Boston’s Central Artery/Tunnel Project, or “Big Dig,” the Commonwealth of Massachusetts undertook to extend the Massachusetts Turnpike through a tunnel running beneath South Boston and Boston Harbor to Logan Airport. The Commonwealth employed respondent Dutra Construction Company to assist in that undertaking. At the time, Dutra owned the world’s largest dredge, the Super Scoop, which was capable of digging the 50-foot-deep, 100-foot-wide, three-quarter-mile-long trench beneath Boston Harbor that is now the Ted Williams Tunnel.

The Super Scoop is a massive floating platform from which a clamshell bucket is suspended beneath the water. The bucket removes silt from the ocean floor and dumps the sediment onto one of two scows that float alongside the dredge. The Super Scoop has certain characteristics common to seagoing vessels, such as a captain and crew, navigational lights, ballast tanks, and a crew dining area. But it lacks others. Most conspicuously, the Super Scoop has only limited means of self-propulsion. It is moved long distances by tugboat. (To work on the Big Dig, it was towed from its home base in California through the Panama Canal and up the eastern seaboard to Boston Harbor.) It navigates short distances by manipulating its anchors and cables. When dredging the Boston Harbor trench, it typically moved in this way once every couple of hours, covering a distance of 30-to-50 feet each time.

Dutra hired petitioner Willard Stewart, a marine engineer, to maintain the mechanical systems on the Super Scoop during its dredging of the harbor. At the time of Stewart’s accident, the Super Scoop lay idle because one of its scows, Scow No. 4, had suffered an engine malfunction and the other was at sea. Stewart was on board Scow No. 4, feeding wires through an open hatch located about 10 feet above the engine area. While Stewart was perched beside the hatch, the Super Scoop used its bucket to move the scow. In the process, the scow collided with the Super Scoop, causing a jolt that plunged Stewart headfirst through the hatch to the deck below. He was seriously injured.

Stewart sued Dutra in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts under the Jones Act, 38 Stat. 1185, as amended, 41 Stat. 1007 and 96 Stat. 1955, 46 U. S. C. App. § 688(a), alleging that he was a seaman injured by Dutra’s negligence. He also filed an alternative claim under § 5(b) of the LHWCA, 33 U. S. C. § 905(b), which authorizes covered employees to sue a “vessel” owner as a third party for an injury caused by the owner’s negligence.

Dutra moved for summary judgment on the Jones Act claim, arguing that Stewart was not a seaman. The company acknowledged that Stewart was “a member of the [Super Scoop’s] crew,” 230 F. 3d 461, 466 (CA1 2000); that he spent “[n]inety-nine percent of his time while on the job” aboard the Super Scoop, App. 20 (Defendant’s Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment); and that his “duties contributed to the function” of the Super Scoop, id., at 32. Dutra argued only that the Super Scoop was not a vessel for purposes of the Jones Act. Dutra pointed to the Court of Appeals’ en banc decision in DiGiovanni v. Traylor Brothers, Inc., 959 F. 2d 1119 (CA1 1992), which held that “if a barge ... or other float’s purpose or primary business is not navigation or commerce, then workers assigned thereto for its shore enterprise are to be considered seamen only when it is in actual navigation or transit” at the time of the plaintiff’s injury. Id., at 1123 (internal quotation marks omitted). The District Court granted summary judgment to Dutra, because the Super Scoop’s primary purpose was dredging rather than transportation and because it was stationary at the time of Stewart’s injury.

On interlocutory appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that it too was bound by DiGiovanni. 230 F. 3d, at 467-468. The court reasoned that the Super Scoop’s primary function was construction and that “[a]ny navigation or transportation that may be required is incidental to this primary function.” Id., at 468. The court also concluded that the scow’s movement at the time of the accident did not help Stewart, because his status as a seaman depended on the movement of the Super Scoop (which was stationary) rather than the scow. Id., at 469.

On remand, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Dutra on Stewart’s alternative claim that Dutra was liable for negligence as an owner of a “vessel” under the LHWCA, 33 U. S. C. § 905(b). The Court of Appeals again affirmed. It noted that Dutra had conceded that the Super Scoop was a “vessel” for purposes of § 905(b), explaining that “the LHWCA’s definition of ‘vessel’ is ‘significantly more inclusive than that used for evaluating seaman status under the Jones Act.’ ” 343 F. 3d 10, 13 (CA1 2003) (quoting Morehead v. Atkinson-Kiewit, J/V, 97 F. 3d 603, 607 (CA1 1996) (en banc)). The Court of Appeals nonetheless agreed with the District Court’s conclusion that Dutra’s alleged negligence was committed in its capacity as an employer rather than as owner of the vessel under § 905(b).

We granted certiorari to resolve confusion over how to determine whether a watercraft is a “vessel” for purposes of the LHWCA. 540 U. S. 1177 (2004).

II

Prior to the passage of the Jones Act, general maritime law usually entitled a seaman who fell sick or was injured both to maintenance and cure (or the right to be cared for and paid wages during the voyage, see, e. g., Harden v. Gordon, 11 F. Cas. 480, 482-483 (No. 6,047) (CC Me. 1823) (Story, J.)), and to damages for any “injuries received ... in consequence of the unseaworthiness of the ship,” The Osceola, 189 U. S. 158, 175 (1903). Suits against shipowners for negligence, however, were barred. Courts presumed that the seaman, in signing articles of employment for the voyage, had assumed the risks of his occupation; thus a seaman was “not allowed to recover an indemnity for the negligence of the master, or any member of the crew.” Ibid.

Congress enacted the Jones Act in 1920 to remove this bar to negligence suits by seamen. See Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515 U. S. 347, 354 (1995). Specifically, the Jones Act provides:

“Any seaman who shall suffer personal injury in the course of his employment may, at his election, maintain an action for damages at law, with the right of trial by jury, and in such action all statutes of the United States modifying or extending the common-law right or remedy in cases of personal injury to railway employees shall apply.” 46 U. S. C. App. § 688(a).

Although the statute is silent on who is a “seaman,” both the maritime law backdrop against which Congress enacted the Jones Act and Congress’ subsequent enactments provide some guidance.

First, “seaman” is a term of art that had an established meaning under general maritime law. We have thus presumed that when the Jones Act made available negligence remedies to “[a]ny seaman who shall suffer personal injury in the course of his employment,” Congress took the term “seaman” as the general maritime law found it. Chandris, supra, at 355 (citing Warner v. Goltra, 293 U. S. 155, 159 (1934)); G. Gilmore & C. Black, Law of Admiralty § 6—21, pp. 328-329 (2d ed. 1975).

Second, Congress provided further guidance in 1927 when it enacted the LHWCA, which provides scheduled compensation to land-based maritime workers but which also excepts from its coverage “a master or member of a crew of any vessel.” 33 U. S. C. §902(3)(G). This exception is simply “a refinement of the term ‘seaman’ in the Jones Act.” McDermott Int’l, Inc. v. Wilander, 498 U. S. 337, 347 (1991). Thus, the Jones Act and the LHWCA are complementary regimes that work in tandem: The Jones Act provides tort remedies to sea-based maritime workers, while the LHWCA provides workers’ compensation to Zand-based, maritime employees. Ibid.; Swanson v. Marra Brothers, Inc., 328 U. S. 1, 6-7 (1946).

Still, discerning the contours of “seaman” status, even with the general maritime law and the LHWCA’s language as aids to interpretation, .has not been easy. See Chandris, supra, at 356. We began clarifying the definition of “seaman” in a pair of cases, McDermott Int’l, Inc. v. Wilander, supra, and Chandris, supra, that addressed the relationship a worker must have to a vessel in order to be a “master or member” of its crew. We now turn to the other half of the LHWCA’s equation: how to determine whether a watercraft is a “vessel.”

A

Just as Congress did not define the term “seaman” in the Jones Act, it did not define the term “vessel” in the LHWCA itself. However, Congress provided a definition elsewhere. At the time of the LHWCA’s enactment, §§ 1 and 3 of the Revised Statutes of 1873 specified:

“In determining the meaning of the revised statutes, or of any act or resolution of Congress passed subsequent to February twenty-fifth, eighteen hundred and seventy-one, . •. . [t]he word ‘vessel’ includes every description of water-craft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water.” 18 Stat., pt. 1, p. 1.

Sections 1 and 3 show that, because the LHWCA is an Act of Congress passed after February 25, 1871, the LHWCA’s use of the term “vessel” “includes every description of water-craft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water.” Ibid.

Section 3’s definition, repealed and recodified in 1947 as part of the Rules of Construction Act, 1 U. S. C. § 3, has remained virtually unchanged from 1873 to the present. Even now, §3 continues to supply the default definition of “vessel” throughout the U. S. Code, “unless the context indicates otherwise.” 1 U. S. C. § 1. The context surrounding the LHWCA’s enactment indicates that § 3 defines the term “vessel” for purposes of the LHWCA.

Section 3 merely codified the meaning that the term “vessel” had acquired in general maritime law. See 1 S. Friedell, Benedict on Admiralty § 165 (rev. 7th ed. 2004). In the decades following its enactment, § 3 was regularly used to define the term “vessel” in maritime jurisprudence. Taking only the issue presented here — whether a dredge is a vessel— prior to passage of the Jones Act and the LHWCA, courts often used §3’s definition to conclude that dredges were vessels.

From the very beginning, these courts understood the differences between dredges and more traditional seagoing vessels. Though smaller, the dredges at issue in the earliest cases were essentially the same as the Super Scoop here. For instance, the court could have been speaking equally of the Super Scoop as of The Alabama when it declared:

“The dredge and scows have no means of propulsion of their own except that the dredge, by the use of anchors, windlass, and rope, is moved for short distances, as required in carrying on the business of dredging. Both the dredge and the scows are moved from place to place where they may be employed by being towed, and some of the tows have been for long distances and upon the high seas. The dredge and scows are not made for or adapted to the carriage of freight or passengers, and the evidence does not show that, in point of fact, this dredge and scows had ever been so used and employed.” The Alabama, 19 F. 544, 545 (SD Ala. 1884).

See also Huismann v. The Pioneer, 30 F. 206 (EDNY 1886). None of this prevented the court from recognizing that dredges are vessels because they are watercraft with “the capacity to be navigated in and upon the waters.” The Alabama, supra, at 546; see also The Pioneer, supra, at 207; The International, 89 F. 484, 485 (CA3 1898).

This Court also treated dredges as vessels prior to the passage of the Jones Act and the LHWCA. It did so in a pair of cases, first implicitly in The “Virginia Ehrman” and the “Agnese,” 97 U. S. 309 (1878), and then explicitly in Ellis v. United States, 206 U. S. 246 (1907). In Ellis, this Court considered, inter alia, whether workers aboard various dredges and scows were covered by a federal labor law. Just as in the present case, one of the Ellis appellants argued that the dredges at issue were “vessels” within the meaning of Rev. Stat. §3, now 1 U. S. C. §3. 206 U. S., at 249. The United States responded that dredges were only vessels, if at all, when in actual navigation as they were “towed from port to port.” Id., at 253. Citing §3, Justice Holmes rejected the Government’s argument, stating that “[t]he scows and floating dredges were vessels” that “were within the admiralty jurisdiction of the United States.” Id., at 259.

These early cases show that at the time Congress enacted the Jones Act and the LHWCA in the 1920’s, it was settled that § 3 defined the term “vessel” for purposes of those statutes. It was also settled that a structure’s status as a vessel under § 3 depended on whether the structure was a means of maritime transportation. See R. Hughes, Handbook of Admiralty Law §5, p. 14 (2d ed. 1920). For then, as now, dredges served a waterborne transportation function, since in performing their work they carried machinery, equipment, and crew over water. See, e. g., Butler v. Ellis, 45 F. 2d 951, 955 (CA4 1930) (finding the vessel status of dredges “sustained by the overwhelming weight of authority”); The Hurricane, 2 F. 2d 70, 72 (ED Pa. 1924) (expressing “no doubt” that dredges are vessels), aff’d, 9 F. 2d 396 (CA3 1925).

This Court’s cases have continued to treat §3 as defining the term “vessel” in the LHWCA, and they have continued to construe § 3’s definition in light of the term’s established meaning in general maritime law. For instance, in Norton v. Warner Co., 321 U. S. 565 (1944), the Court considered whether a worker on a harbor barge was “a master or member of a crew of any vessel” under the LHWCA, 33 U. S. C. § 902(3)(G). In finding that the “barge [was] a vessel within the meaning of the Act,” the Court not only quoted §3’s definition of the term “vessel,” but it also cited in support of its holding several earlier cases that had held dredges to be vessels based on the general maritime law. 321 U. S., at 571, and n. 4. This Court therefore confirmed in Norton that § 3 defines the term “vessel” in the LHWCA and that §3 should be construed consistently with the general maritime law. Since Norton, this Court has often said that dredges and comparable watercraft qualify as vessels under the Jones Act and the LHWCA.

B

Despite this Court’s reliance on § 3 in cases like Ellis and Norton, Dutra argues that the Court has implicitly narrowed § 3’s definition. Section 3 says that a “vessel” must be “used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water.” 18 Stat., pt. 1, p. 1. In a pair of cases, the Court held that a drydock, Cope v. Vallette Dry Dock Co., 119 U. S. 625, 630 (1887), and a wharfboat attached to the mainland, Evansville & Bowling Green Packet Co. v. Chero Cola Bottling Co., 271 U. S. 19, 22 (1926), were not vessels under §3, because they were not practically capable of being used to transport people, freight, or cargo from place to place. According to Dutra, Cope and Evansville adopted a definition of “vessel” narrower than § 3’s text.

Dutra misreads Cope and Evansville. In Cope, the plaintiff sought a salvage award for having prevented a drydock from sinking after a steamship collided with it. 119 U. S., at 625-626. At the time of the accident, the drydock, a floating dock used for repairing vessels, was “moored and lying at [the] usual place” it had occupied for the past 20 years. Id., at 626. In those circumstances, the dry-dock was a “fixed structure” that had been “permanently moored,” rather than a vessel that had been temporarily anchored. Id., at 627. Evansville involved a wharfboat secured by cables to the mainland. Local water, electricity, and telephone lines all ran from shore to the wharfboat, evincing a “permanent location.” 271 U. S., at 22. And the wharfboat, like the drydock in Cope, was neither “taken from place to place” nor “used to carry freight from one place to another.” 271 U. S., at 22. As in Cope, the Court concluded that the wharfboat “was not practically capable of being used as a means of transportation.” 271 U. S., at 22.

Cope and Evansville did no more than construe § 3 in light of the distinction drawn by the general maritime law between watercraft temporarily stationed in a particular location and those permanently affixed to shore or resting on the ocean floor. See, e. g., The Alabama, 19 F., at 546 (noting that vessels possess “mobility and [the] capacity to navigate,” as distinct from fixed structures like wharves, dry-docks, and bridges). Simply put, a watercraft is not “capable of being used” for maritime transport in any meaningful sense if it has been permanently moored or otherwise rendered practically incapable of transportation or movement.

This distinction is sensible: A ship and its crew do not move in and out of Jones Act coverage depending on whether the ship is at anchor, docked for loading or unloading, or berthed for minor repairs, in the same way that ships taken permanently out of the water as a practical matter do not remain vessels merely because of the remote possibility that they may one day sail again. See Pavone v. Mississippi Riverboat Amusement Corp., 52 F. 3d 560, 570 (CA5 1995) (floating casino was no longer a vessel where it “was moored to the shore in a semi-permanent or indefinite manner”); Kathriner v. Unisea, Inc., 975 F. 2d 657, 660 (CA9 1992) (floating processing plant was no longer a vessel where a “large opening [had been] cut into her hull,” rendering her incapable of moving over the water). Even if the general maritime law had not informed the meaning of § 3, its definition would not sweep within its reach an array of fixed structures not commonly thought of as capable of being used for water transport. See, e.g., Leocal v. Ashcroft, ante, at 9 (“When interpreting a statute, we must give words their ‘ordinary or natural' meaning” (quoting Smith v. United States, 508 U. S. 223, 228 (1993))).

Applying §3 brings within the purview of the Jones Act the sorts of watercraft considered vessels at the time Congress passed the Act. By including special-purpose vessels like dredges, § 3 sweeps broadly, but the other prerequisites to qualifying for seaman status under the Jones Act provide some limits, notwithstanding §3’s breadth. A maritime worker seeking Jones Act seaman status must also prove that his duties contributed to the vessel’s function or mission, and that his connection to the vessel was substantial both in nature and duration. Chandris, 515 U. S., at 376. Thus, even though the Super Scoop is a “vessel,” workers injured aboard the Super Scoop are eligible for seaman status only if they are “master[s] or member[s]” of its crew.

C

The Court of Appeals, relying on its previous en banc decision in DiGiovanni v. Traylor Brothers, Inc., 959 F. 2d 1119 (CA1 1992), held that the Super Scoop is not a “vessel” because its primary purpose is not navigation or commerce and because it was not in actual transit at the time of Stewart’s injury. 230 F. 3d, at 468-469. Neither prong of the Court of Appeals’ test is consistent with the text of § 3 or the established meaning of the term “vessel” in general maritime law.

Section 3 requires only that a watercraft be “used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water” to qualify as a vessel. It does not require that a watercraft be used primarily for that purpose. See The Alabama, supra, at 546; The International, 89 F., at 485. As the Court of Appeals recognized, the Super Scoop’s “function was to move through Boston Harbor, . . . digging the ocean bottom as it moved.” 343 F. 3d, at 12. In other words, the Super Scoop was not only “capable of being used” to transport equipment and workers over water — it was used to transport those things. Indeed, it could not have dug the Ted Williams Tunnel had it been unable to traverse the Boston Harbor, carrying with it workers like Stewart.

Also, a watercraft need not be in motion to qualify as a vessel under §3. Looking to whether a watercraft is mo-, tionless or moving is the sort of “snapshot” test that we rejected in Chandris. Just as a worker does not “oscillate back and forth between Jones Act coverage and other remedies depending on the activity in which the worker was engaged while injured,” Chandris, 515 U. S., at 363, neither does a watercraft pass in and out of Jones Act coverage depending on whether it was moving at the time of the accident.

Granted, the Court has sometimes spoken of the requirement that a vessel be “in navigation,” id., at 373-374, but never to indicate that a structure’s locomotion at any given moment mattered. Rather, the point was that structures may lose their character as vessels if they have been withdrawn from the water for extended periods of time. Ibid.; Roper v. United States, 368 U. S. 20, 21, 23 (1961); West v. United States, 361 U. S. 118, 122 (1959). The Court did not mean that the “in navigation” requirement stood apart from § 3, such that a “vessel” for purposes of § 3 might nevertheless not be a “vessel in navigation” for purposes of the Jones Act or the LHWCA. See, e. g., United States v. Templeton, 378 F. 3d 845, 851 (CA8 2004) (“[T]he definition of Vessel in navigation’ under the Jones Act is not as expansive as the general definition of ‘vessel’ ”).

Instead, the “in navigation” requirement is an element of the vessel status of a watercraft. It is relevant to whether the craft is “used, or capable of being used” for maritime transportation. Á ship long lodged in a drydock or shipyard can again be put to sea, no less than one permanently moored to shore or the ocean floor can be cut loose and made to sail. The question remains in all cases whether the watercraft’s use “as a means of transportation on water” is a practical possibility or merely a theoretical one. Supra, at 493. In some cases that inquiry may involve factual issues for the jury, Chandris, supra, at 373, but here no relevant facts were in dispute. Dutra conceded that the Super Scoop was only temporarily stationary while Stewart and others were repairing the scow; the Super Scoop had not been taken out of service, permanently anchored, or otherwise rendered practically incapable of maritime transport.

Finally, although Dutra argues that the Super Scoop is not a “vessel” under § 902(3)(G), which is the LHWCA provision that excludes seamen from the Act’s coverage, Dutra conceded below that the Super Scoop is a “vessel” under § 905(b), which is the LHWCA provision that imposes liability on vessel owners for negligence to longshoremen. The concession was necessary because the Court of Appeals had previously held that §905(b)’s use of the term “vessel” is “ ‘significantly more inclusive than that used for evaluating seaman status under the Jones Act.’ ” 343 F. 3d, at 13 (quoting Morehead v. Atkinson-Kiewit, 97 F. 3d, at 607). The Court of Appeals’ approach is no longer tenable. The LHWCA does not meaningfully define the term “vessel” as it appears in either §902(3)(G) or § 905(b), see n. 2, supra, and 1 U. S. C. § 3 defines the term “vessel” throughout the LHWCA.

Ill

At the time that Congress enacted the LHWCA and since, Rev. Stat. §3, now 1 U. S. C. §3, has defined the term “vessel” in the LHWCA. Under § 3, a “vessel” is any watercraft practically capable of maritime transportation, regardless of its primary purpose or state of transit at a particular moment. Because the Super Scoop was engaged in maritime transportation at the time of Stewart’s injury, it was a vessel within the meaning of 1 U. S. C. § 3. Despite the seeming incongruity of grouping dredges alongside more traditional seafaring vessels under the maritime statutes, Congress and the courts have long done precisely that:

“[I]t seems a stretch of the imagination to class the deck hands of a mud dredge in the quiet waters of a Potomac creek with the bold and skillful mariners who breast the angry waves of the Atlantic; but such and so far-reaching are the principles which underlie the jurisdiction of the courts of admiralty that they adapt themselves to all the new kinds of property and new sets of operatives and new conditions which are brought into existence in the progress of the world.” Saylor v. Taylor, 77 F. 476, 479 (CA4 1896).

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

The Chief Justice took no part in the decision of this case.

       The Shipping Act, 1916, defines the term “vessel” for purposes of the Jones Act. See 46 U. S. C. App. §801. However, the provision of the Jones Act at issue here, § 688(a), speaks not of “vessels,” but of “seamen.” In any event, because we have identified a Jones Act “seaman” with reference to the LHWCA’s exclusion, see 38 U. S. C. § 902(3)(G) (“a master or member of a crew of any vessel”), it is the LHWCA’s use of the term “vessel” that matters. And, as we explain, the context surrounding Congress’ enactment of the LHWCA suggests that Rev. Stat. §3, now 1 U. S. C. §3, provides the controlling definition of the term “vessel” in the LHWCA.

       As part of its 1972 Amendments to the LHWCA, Congress amended the Act with what appeal’s at first blush to be a definition of the term “vessel”: “Unless the context requires otherwise, the term ‘vessel’ means any vessel upon which or in connection with which any person entitled to benefits under this chapter suffers injury or death arising out of or in the course of his employment, and said vessel’s owner, owner pro hac vice, agent, operator, charter or bare boat charterer, master, officer, or crew member.” 33 U. S. C. §902(21). However, Congress enacted this definition in conjunction with the third-party vessel owner provision of § 905(b). Rather than specifying the characteristics of a vessel, §902(21) instead lists the parties liable for the negligent operation of a vessel. See McCarthy v. The Bark Peking, 716 F. 2d 130, 133 (CA2 1983) (§ 902(21) is “circular” and “does not provide precise guidance as to what is included within the term ‘vessel’ ”).

       Congress had used substantially the same definition before, first in an 1866 antismuggling statute, see § 1, 14 Stat. 178, and then in an 1870 statute “providfing] for the Relief of sick and disabled Seamen,” ch. CLXIX, 16 Stat. 169 (italics deleted); see id., § 7, at 170.

       During the 1947 codification, the hyphen was removed from the word “watercraft.” §3, 61 Stat. 633.

       See, e. g., The Alabama, 19 F. 544, 546 (SD Ala. 1884) (dredge was a vessel and subject to maritime liens); Huismann v. The Pioneer, 30 F. 206, 207 (EDNY 1886) (dredge was a vessel under § 3); Saylor v. Taylor, 77 F. 476, 477 (CA4 1896) (dredge was a vessel under § 3, and its workers were seamen); The International, 89 F. 484, 484-485 (CA3 1898) (dredge was a vessel under §3); Eastern S. S. Corp. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 256 F. 497, 500-501 (CA1 1919) (type of dredge called a “drillboat” was a vessel under § 3); Los Angeles v. United Dredging Co., 14 F. 2d 364, 365-366 (CA9 1926) (dredge was a vessel under §3 and its engineers were seamen).

       See, e. g., Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U. S. 527, 535, and n. 1 (1995) (indicating that a stationary crane barge was a “vessel” under the Extension of Admiralty Jurisdiction Act); Southwest Marine, Inc. v. Gizoni, 502 U. S. 81, 92 (1991) (holding that a jury could reasonably find that floating platforms were “vessels in navigation” under the Jones Act); Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Pfeifer, 462 U. S. 523, 528-530 (1983) (treating coal barge as a “vessel” under the LHWCA, 33 U. S. C. § 905(b)); cf. Senko v. LaCrosse Dredging Corp., 352 U. S. 370, 372 (1957) (assuming that a dredge was a Jones Act vessel); id., at 375, n. 1 (Harlan, J., dissenting) (same).