United States v. Huet
665 F.3d 588, 2012 WL 19378, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 133 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An indictment for aiding and abetting a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 2 is facially sufficient if it tracks the statutory elements and provides basic factual orientation. Prosecuting a non-felon under this theory does not violate their Second Amendment right to bear arms, as this right does not extend to facilitating a felon's illegal possession of a firearm.
Facts:
- Melissa Huet and her paramour, Marvin Hall, lived together in Clarion County, Pennsylvania.
- Hall had a prior felony conviction for possessing an unregistered firearm, which legally prohibited him from owning or possessing any firearms.
- Huet was legally permitted to possess firearms as she did not have a felony conviction.
- During an undercover FBI investigation focused on another individual, agents met Huet and Hall.
- FBI agents executed a valid search warrant on the couple's home.
- During the search, agents seized an SKS rifle from an upstairs bedroom.
- After the search, Huet allegedly told investigators that the guns in the house belonged to her and that it was legal for her to purchase them.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania returned an indictment charging Marvin Hall with being a felon in possession of a firearm and Melissa Huet with aiding and abetting Hall's possession.
- Hall pled guilty to the charge against him.
- Huet filed a motion in the District Court to dismiss the indictment against her, arguing it failed to state an offense and violated her Second Amendment rights.
- The District Court granted Huet's motion and dismissed the indictment with prejudice.
- The Government, as appellant, filed a timely appeal of the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
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 an indictment charging a non-felon with aiding and abetting a felon's possession of a firearm fail to state a criminal offense and violate the non-felon's Second Amendment rights if it does not specify the particular actions that constituted aiding and abetting?
Opinions:
Majority - Fisher, Circuit Judge.
No. An indictment that tracks the statutory language for aiding and abetting a felon in possession of a firearm is sufficient to state an offense, and prosecuting a non-felon for such conduct does not violate their Second Amendment rights. The District Court erred by dismissing the indictment. First, regarding the indictment's sufficiency, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(c)(1) only requires a plain and concise statement of the essential facts. The indictment against Huet met this standard because it listed the elements of the offense, specified the time period of the alleged crime, and identified the firearm involved, which sufficiently apprised Huet of the charges. The District Court improperly went beyond the indictment's text to weigh the sufficiency of the government's evidence, which is a question for trial, not a pretrial motion to dismiss. Second, the charge does not violate Huet's Second Amendment rights. The indictment does not criminalize Huet's lawful possession of a firearm; it criminalizes her alleged act of aiding and abetting Hall, a prohibited person, in his illegal possession. The Second Amendment does not protect conduct that facilitates a crime, and one's personal right to bear arms does not immunize them from liability for helping another person illegally possess a weapon.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the procedural rule that a pretrial motion to dismiss an indictment cannot be used to challenge the sufficiency of the government's evidence, reserving that question for trial. It clarifies that for an aiding and abetting charge, an indictment is generally sufficient if it tracks the statutory language and provides basic factual context, without needing to detail the specific alleged acts. More substantively, the decision establishes that an individual's Second Amendment rights do not serve as a shield against prosecution for facilitating a felon's illegal firearm possession. This prevents the Second Amendment from being interpreted as a right to arm prohibited persons, ensuring that accomplice liability statutes remain effective tools against gun crime.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Huet