Where a state statute explicitly defines 'burglary' in a way that does not require proof of an intent to commit a crime, and thus lacks an element necessary to satisfy the Armed Career Criminal Act's generic definition of 'burglary,' 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), is that facial overbreadth enough to demonstrate that the crime is nongeneric, or must a federal defendant also prove that the state has convicted someone who did not, in fact, harbor that intent?

QUESTION PRESENTED Where a state statute explicitly defines “burglary” in a way that does not require proof of an intent to commit a crime, and thus lacks an element necessary to satisfy the Armed Career Criminal Act’s generic definition of “burglary,” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), is that facial overbreadth enough to demonstrate that the crime is nongeneric, or must a federal defendant also prove that the state has convicted someone who did not, in fact, harbor that intent? 1