UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frank BANCALARI, Defendant-Appellant
97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2590, 97 Daily Journal DAR 4566, 110 F.3d 1425 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To convict a defendant for aiding and abetting the use of a firearm during a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), the government must prove the defendant specifically intended to facilitate or encourage the use of the firearm itself, as mere knowledge of its use during the underlying crime is insufficient. Additionally, a kidnapping under 18 U.S.C. § 1201 continues as long as the victim's transportation is involuntary, even if they do not attempt to escape at every opportunity.
Facts:
- Frank Bancalari and Maria Elena Muniz had a volatile relationship that ended in 1993, after which Bancalari engaged in multiple acts of violence and threats against Muniz.
- On September 29, 1994, Bancalari punched Muniz, forced her into his truck, and later threatened to kill her.
- On October 4, 1994, after Muniz obtained a restraining order, Bancalari assaulted her boyfriend, Christopher Pittman, and again threatened Muniz's life.
- On October 6, 1994, Bancalari and an unidentified passenger used a truck to force the car driven by Pittman, with Muniz as a passenger, to stop.
- Bancalari's passenger exited the truck, pointed a gun at Pittman, and caused him to flee the scene.
- Bancalari then dragged Muniz from Pittman's car, forced her into his truck with their daughter, and took her identification documents.
- Bancalari drove Muniz and their daughter directly to Mexico, crossing the border approximately three hours later.
- After crossing into Mexico, Bancalari threatened Muniz with a different gun and held her there for five days before allowing her to return to the U.S. under certain conditions.
Procedural Posture:
- Frank Bancalari was tried before a jury in a United States District Court.
- The jury convicted Bancalari of one count of kidnapping and transporting a person across a foreign border and one count of aiding and abetting the use of a firearm in the commission of that kidnapping.
- At the close of evidence, Bancalari moved for a judgment of acquittal under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29, which was presumably denied by the trial court.
- Bancalari, as appellant, appealed both convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for the kidnapping conviction and the jury instructions for the firearms conviction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
To convict a defendant of aiding and abetting the use of a firearm during a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), is it sufficient that the defendant participated in the underlying crime knowing a firearm was being used, or must the prosecution prove the defendant intentionally aided and abetted the use or carrying of the firearm itself?
Opinions:
Majority - Hug, Chief Judge
No, a defendant cannot be convicted for aiding and abetting a § 924(c) violation merely because he knew a firearm would be used and, with that knowledge, participated in the underlying crime. The prosecution must prove the defendant performed an act that directly facilitated or encouraged the use or carrying of the firearm itself. Aiding and abetting is a specific intent crime, meaning the defendant must have specifically intended to facilitate the commission of the principal's firearm offense, not just the underlying kidnapping. The trial court’s jury instructions were erroneous because they only required the jury to find that Bancalari knew his accomplice was using a gun, which is an insufficient mens rea. This error was not harmless because the appellate court cannot conclude that the jury necessarily found Bancalari intentionally assisted his accomplice in using or carrying the gun. Therefore, the firearms conviction must be reversed. The kidnapping conviction, however, is affirmed because there was ample evidence for the jury to find the kidnapping was ongoing when the Mexican border was crossed.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the mens rea requirement for aiding and abetting liability under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) within the Ninth Circuit, aligning it with the Second Circuit's precedent in United States v. Medina. The ruling heightens the evidentiary burden for the prosecution, requiring proof that a defendant was not just a participant in a crime where a gun was present, but that they specifically intended to help in the use of that gun. This prevents convictions for the separate and serious firearm offense based on a theory of vicarious liability tied only to the underlying crime. It reinforces the principle that aiding and abetting requires specific intent for each element of the crime being abetted.
