Snowden v. United States
52 A.3d 858 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A co-conspirator is criminally liable for a substantive offense committed by another co-conspirator if the offense was committed in furtherance of the conspiracy and was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the conspiratorial agreement. An act is considered in furtherance of a conspiracy if it occurs during the escape phase of the crime, as the crime is not complete until the conspirators have secured the proceeds and successfully fled.
Facts:
- On May 2, 2008, Lorenzo Ross was celebrating with his father and cousins, including Martin Scales, in an apartment complex parking lot.
- Lorenzo observed a group of five men, including the appellant (whom Lorenzo knew as 'Snoop'), gather nearby.
- Lorenzo saw the appellant put on a ski mask and heard him say to his group, 'y'all ready, let’s go.'
- The appellant, armed with a gun, approached Scales and demanded money, while a second armed co-conspirator positioned himself behind the group, aiming a large handgun at them.
- After the appellant took $20 from Scales, Scales began to fight him, and the appellant's gun discharged during the struggle.
- The appellant wrestled free from Scales and fled the scene with the $20.
- Approximately fifteen seconds after the appellant fled, the second gunman, who had remained at the scene, shot Scales in the abdomen before also fleeing.
Procedural Posture:
- The appellant was tried before a jury in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
- The jury found the appellant guilty of conspiracy to commit armed robbery, armed robbery, aggravated assault while armed (AAWA), four counts of assault with intent to rob while armed (AWIRWA), and two counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence (PFCV).
- The trial court sentenced the appellant to a total of 120 months of incarceration.
- The appellant filed a timely notice of appeal to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, arguing insufficiency of the evidence for the AAWA and AWIRWA convictions and that several convictions should merge.
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 co-conspirator's act of shooting a robbery victim, which occurs after another co-conspirator has taken the proceeds and fled the immediate scene, constitute an act 'in furtherance of' and a 'reasonably foreseeable consequence' of the conspiracy to commit armed robbery, thus making the fleeing co-conspirator criminally liable for the shooting?
Opinions:
Majority - Ruiz, Senior Judge
Yes. A co-conspirator is liable for a crime committed by another conspirator if it was a foreseeable act done in furtherance of their shared criminal plan. The court reasoned that the conspiracy to commit armed robbery was not complete merely because the appellant had taken the money and fled. The crime's objective includes the successful asportation of the proceeds and the escape of all conspirators. The second gunman’s act of shooting Scales, who had resisted, facilitated the escape, punished resistance, and discouraged reporting, thereby furthering the conspiracy's ultimate goal. Furthermore, a shooting is a quintessential 'reasonably foreseeable consequence' of an armed robbery, as participants who bring firearms to a crime should anticipate that violence may occur. Therefore, the shooting was not a random, disconnected act, but part of a 'continuous chain of events' for which the appellant was criminally responsible under Pinkerton v. United States.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the temporal scope of co-conspirator liability under the Pinkerton doctrine within the District of Columbia. It establishes that liability for a co-conspirator's violent acts extends through the immediate escape phase, even after another conspirator has secured the crime's proceeds and left the scene. This holding makes it more difficult for a defendant to argue that the conspiracy terminated at the moment they departed, thereby broadening responsibility for foreseeable violence that facilitates the group's getaway. This precedent strengthens the legal principle that all members of an armed conspiracy are accountable for the violent outcomes that are a natural result of their criminal agreement.
Unlock the full brief for Snowden v. United States