Rosemond v. United States
572 U. S. ____ (2014) (2014)
Rule of Law:
To convict a defendant for aiding and abetting the use of a firearm in a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), the government must prove the defendant actively participated in the underlying crime and had advance knowledge that a confederate would use or carry a firearm.
Facts:
- Vashti Perez arranged to sell a pound of marijuana to Ricardo Gonzales and Coby Painter.
- Perez, along with petitioner Justus Rosemond and Ronald Joseph, drove to a park to conduct the transaction.
- Gonzales entered the back seat of the car to inspect the marijuana.
- Instead of paying, Gonzales punched one of the men in the car and fled with the drugs.
- As Gonzales and Painter ran away, either Rosemond or Joseph exited the car and fired several shots from a semiautomatic handgun; the identity of the shooter was disputed.
- Perez, Rosemond, and Joseph then gave chase in their car after Gonzales and Painter.
- A police officer, responding to an alert, pulled their car over.
Procedural Posture:
- Justus Rosemond was charged in U.S. District Court (the trial court) with violating 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) through direct use or, alternatively, aiding and abetting.
- At trial, the judge instructed the jury it could convict Rosemond of aiding and abetting if he knew his cohort used a firearm and he actively participated in the drug crime.
- The jury returned a general verdict convicting Rosemond on the § 924(c) charge.
- Rosemond appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (the intermediate appellate court), arguing the jury instruction was erroneous.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the conviction, finding its circuit precedent did not require a more specific instruction on intent.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the circuit courts on the standard for aiding and abetting a § 924(c) offense.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a conviction for aiding and abetting the use of a firearm in a drug trafficking crime under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) require proof that the defendant actively participated in the underlying crime with advance knowledge that a confederate would be armed?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kagan
Yes. A conviction for aiding and abetting a § 924(c) offense requires proof that the defendant actively participated in the underlying drug trafficking or violent crime with advance knowledge that a confederate would use or carry a gun. The aiding and abetting statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2, has two components: an affirmative act and intent. For a compound crime like § 924(c), the affirmative act requirement is satisfied if the defendant facilitates any part of the crime, including the underlying drug transaction. However, the intent requirement demands that the defendant intend to facilitate the entire crime as charged, which includes the use of a firearm. This intent is established when a defendant actively participates in the venture with full awareness of its scope, including that a confederate will be armed. Crucially, this must be 'advance knowledge'—knowledge acquired at a time when the defendant has a realistic opportunity to withdraw from the crime. If an accomplice only learns of the gun when it is too late to opt out, they have not made the conscious choice to aid an armed offense and lack the requisite intent. The trial court's instruction was erroneous because it failed to specify that the defendant must have had this advance knowledge.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Justice Alito
Yes, but the majority incorrectly alters the law of intent by requiring the government to prove the defendant had a 'realistic opportunity' to withdraw. While agreeing that aiding and abetting requires an act and a particular mental state (intent or knowledge), the majority's 'realistic opportunity' standard improperly merges the affirmative defense of duress or necessity into the prosecution's burden of proving the crime's mens rea. A defendant can still possess the intent for a crime to succeed even if their motive is to avoid a dangerous situation, such as being harmed by a confederate for backing out. By making the defendant's ability to safely withdraw part of the mens rea, the Court confuses intent with motive and places a difficult and illogical burden on the prosecution to prove facts peculiarly within the defendant's knowledge.
Analysis:
This decision resolves a circuit split by clarifying the mens rea required for aiding and abetting a § 924(c) violation. The Court's 'advance knowledge' requirement is significant because it protects defendants who may be unaware that a co-conspirator is armed until it is too late to dissociate from the crime. This holding raises the bar for prosecutors, who must now prove not only that the defendant participated in the underlying crime but also that they knew about the firearm at a point when they could have realistically backed out. The decision reinforces the principle that criminal liability for a compound offense requires a mental state that extends to all key elements of the crime, preventing convictions based solely on participation in a lesser predicate offense.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Rosemond v. United States (2014)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"