Definition
A plea available to a criminal defendant that neither admits nor denies guilt but submits to punishment as though a guilty plea had been entered. The defendant who pleads nolo contendere accepts the criminal sentence without contesting the charge. The plea is sometimes called a "no contest" plea.
The practical consequence of the plea in criminal court mirrors that of a guilty plea: the court may impose any sentence authorized for the offense. The critical distinction from a guilty plea lies in its collateral effect — in most jurisdictions, a nolo contendere plea cannot be used as an admission of liability in a subsequent civil proceeding arising from the same conduct.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): "No contest. A plea by a defendant accused of a crime that, without admitting guilt, does not dispute the charge."
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): "A plea, by the defendant, in a criminal prosecution, which, without admitting guilt, subjects him to all the consequences of a plea of guilty."
The ordinary-language meaning is accurate as far as it goes, but both definitions understate the most legally significant feature: the shield the plea can provide against civil liability. Casual usage — and even Webster's 1913 — treats nolo contendere as simply a functional substitute for a guilty plea. Legal research must account for the collateral-use limitation, which is the primary reason defendants choose this plea over a direct guilty plea in the first place.
Common Confusion
Nolo contendere is frequently conflated with a guilty plea. In criminal court, the confusion is largely harmless — both result in conviction and sentencing. The confusion becomes consequential in civil litigation: a guilty plea entered in a prior criminal case can be introduced in a subsequent civil suit as an admission by a party-opponent; a nolo contendere plea generally cannot. Researchers reviewing transcripts or court records that describe a defendant as having "pled out" or "admitted the charge" should verify whether the plea was actually guilty or nolo contendere, as the distinction may determine the plea's admissibility in civil proceedings.
Nolo contendere should also be distinguished from nolle prosequi. Webster's 1913 listed the two as related, but they are not. Nolle prosequi is a prosecutor's declaration to abandon a charge; nolo contendere is the defendant's plea declining to contest one.
Why It Matters in Research
The plea's significance varies substantially by jurisdiction and era. Federal courts and many state courts require judicial acceptance of a nolo contendere plea — it is not available as of right. Researchers working with older federal materials should note that federal courts have historically exercised discretion to reject nolo pleas, and cases from the mid-twentieth century reflect active judicial policy debates about when acceptance was appropriate.
For researchers working across civil and criminal files in the same matter, the presence of a nolo plea in the criminal record is a navigational signal. The civil plaintiff's counsel in the related proceeding almost certainly had to work around the plea's non-admissibility; look for alternative evidence strategies in the civil file.
Historical sources vary in how they characterize the plea's effect. Bouvier's renders it as "I do not desire to contend" — a translation emphasizing choice rather than mere procedural mechanics — while Black's (1st ed.) treats it as a plea "upon which the defendant may be sentenced," which correctly flags that sentencing follows but omits the collateral consequence entirely. Neither historical dictionary entry adequately captures the civil-use limitation that became the plea's most important practical feature. Researchers relying solely on these sources for a complete picture of the plea's function will find them insufficient for post-twentieth-century practice.
Jurisdictional variation also affects availability by offense type. Some states bar nolo contendere pleas for certain serious felonies, traffic offenses, or domestic violence charges. Researchers reviewing state plea records should not assume availability was uniform across offense categories, particularly in materials predating modern statutory codification of plea procedures.
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary (1st ed.) and Bouvier's agree on the essential framework: this is a named plea in criminal proceedings, and the defendant who enters it may be sentenced. Both sources treat the plea's operation in criminal court as the primary — indeed, the only — point of significance. This reflects the state of doctrine at the time of publication, when the plea's impact on civil litigation had not yet been systematically developed.
Black's 2nd ed. entry for nolo contendere is corrupted in the source material, appearing mid-entry for "nobility" before the Latin phrase reappears. This is a transcription artifact in historical reprints and not a substantive discrepancy.
None of the three historical dictionaries addresses the evidentiary treatment of the plea in subsequent civil proceedings. Researchers should treat the historical entries as accurate but incomplete — they describe what the plea does in criminal court while being silent on the feature that most often makes it strategically preferable to a guilty plea in modern practice.
Jurisdictional Note
Not all jurisdictions permit nolo contendere pleas. Texas and several other states restrict or eliminate it by statute or court rule. In federal court, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 requires judicial consent. Researchers working with state-level criminal records must verify whether the plea was legally available in that jurisdiction at the relevant time.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
See Law Mind Encyclopedia: Criminal Procedure — Plea Bargaining and Plea Types; Evidence — Admissions and Prior Proceedings.