The U.S. Supreme Court case Washington v. Arturo R. Recuenco involved the issue of whether a sentencing enhancement based on a fact not found by a jury was harmless error or required reversal of the sentence under the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury. The defendant, Arturo Recuenco, had been convicted in Washington state court for assault with a firearm and received an enhanced sentence because he used a deadly weapon - specifically, a handgun - during his crime. However, while the jury found that he used "a firearm," they did not make specific findings about him using "a handgun." On appeal to the Supreme Court after lower courts upheld his conviction and sentence, Recuenco argued that this discrepancy violated his constitutional rights as established in previous cases like Blakely v. Washington (2004). The Supreme Court disagreed with him in 7-2 decision; it ruled that such errors could be considered harmless if overwhelming evidence supported them and thus do not automatically require reversal of sentences.

In the dissenting opinion for Washington v. Recuenco, Justice Stevens argued that a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial is violated when his sentence is increased based on facts not found by the jury beyond reasonable doubt. He disagreed with the majority's application of harmless-error review in this case, asserting that it undermines constitutional protections and diminishes the role of juries in criminal proceedings. According to him, any error which results in an increase of punishment without proper findings by a jury should be considered structural and thus automatically require reversal. This view was grounded on his belief that every accused has an inviolable right to have all elements necessary for imposing greater sentences determined by their peers rather than judges or appellate courts.