Criminal LawThe act requirement
Robinson v. California
Supreme Court of the United States · Decided June 25, 1962 · Core case
Full citation
Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962).
VerifiedQuotes, pinpoints and citation checked word for word against the opinion; facts checked against the opinion before publication. October 20, 2026.This brief explains the opinion as issued. Later treatment and current-law status are not assessed here.
Robinson
alleged addictappellant
California
stateappellee
Brief
Facts
About four months before the trial, an officer examined Robinson's arms on a street in Los Angeles and observed scar tissue, discoloration, what appeared to be numerous needle marks, and a scab below the crook of his left elbow. He testified that Robinson admitted, under questioning, occasional narcotics use. The following morning at the Central Jail, a second officer examined Robinson's arms, saw discolorations and scabs, and identified photographs taken shortly after the arrest. The second officer gave his opinion that the marks resulted from unsterile hypodermic needle injections into the vein, and said the scabs were several days old. He said Robinson was neither under the influence of narcotics nor in withdrawal when examined, and had admitted past use. At trial in the Municipal Court of Los Angeles, Robinson testified in his own defense. He denied the conversations, denied ever using narcotics or being addicted, and blamed the marks on an allergic condition from military service. Two witnesses corroborated him. The trial judge instructed the jury that California Health and Safety Code section 11721 made it a misdemeanor to use narcotics or to be addicted to their use. The judge instructed that addiction was a status or condition rather than an act, that it was a continuing chronic offense, and that the jury could convict Robinson on a general verdict if it found either that he used narcotics in the county or that he was addicted while in the city. The jury returned a general verdict of guilty.
Issue
Does a state statute that, as construed by the California courts, makes the status of narcotic addiction a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment inflict cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Holding
The California statute as construed by the state courts made the status or chronic condition of narcotic addiction a criminal offense for which Robinson could be convicted and imprisoned without proof of any actual use or possession of narcotics within California. Imprisoning a person for having the illness of addiction, even though he has never touched any narcotic drug within the State or been guilty of any irregular behavior there, inflicts cruel and unusual punishment under the Fourteenth Amendment, so the conviction cannot stand.
IRAC
Learn the citation form
Short video lessons on the rules behind this brief’s citations, each with two pause-and-practice exercises.
The Citation Code · citationcode.com/cases/robinson-v-california