This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The case concerns whether failure to report an escape qualifies as a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).
Background and question before the Court
According to Petitioner (Robert N. Hochman), according to Petitioner (Robert N. Hochman), according to Petitioner (Robert N. Hochman), petitioner argues that failure to report is not a violent felony because it lacks a serious potential risk of injury and does not involve violent conduct.
According to Mr. Roberts (Respondent), according to Mr. Roberts (Respondent), according to Mr. Roberts (Respondent), respondent argues that failure‑to‑report escape creates a serious potential risk of physical injury comparable to burglary, thus qualifying as a violent felony under ACCA's residual clause.
What each side argues
Petitioner Position
According to Petitioner (Robert N. Hochman), according to Petitioner (Robert N. Hochman), according to Petitioner (Robert N. Hochman), failure to report is not a violent felony under ACCA because it presents neither a serious potential risk of injury nor violent conduct.
According to Mr. Hochman, most states distinguish between failure to report and prison‑break escapes, indicating a clear legal distinction.
Respondent Position
According to Mr. Roberts (Respondent), according to Mr. Roberts (Respondent), according to Mr. Roberts (Respondent), failure‑to‑report escape qualifies as a violent felony under ACCA's residual clause because it creates a serious potential risk of physical injury comparable to burglary.
According to Mr. Roberts (Respondent), according to Mr. Roberts (Respondent), according to Mr. Roberts (Respondent), escape inherently involves avoidance of custody, which the statute seeks to prevent.
According to Mr. Roberts (Respondent), according to Mr. Roberts (Respondent), according to Mr. Roberts (Respondent), the rate of possessing a dangerous weapon during such offenses is 3.1 percent.
What happened at oral argument
According to Justice Ginsburg, justice Ginsburg probed whether any crime carries an inherent risk of resistance and whether failure to report is different.
According to Justice Stevens, justice Stevens inquired about the relevance of the magnitude of the risk.
According to Justice Souter, justice Souter emphasized the statutory language of "serious potential" in assessing risk.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 3f6fd4964d859545a2be-r1-48bc969b22153ab9.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 22, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.