United States v. Payan
992 F.2d 1387 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Wharton's Rule does not bar convictions for both conspiracy and a substantive offense if the substantive offense can theoretically be committed by one person, even if the prosecution's theory relies on the cooperation of multiple people under an aiding and abetting statute. Convictions for conspiracy and the aided and abetted substantive crime do not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause because each offense requires proof of an element the other does not.
Facts:
- Between October 1990 and June 1991, farm equipment began disappearing from the Texas panhandle and northeastern New Mexico.
- Law enforcement received information that Pedro Carrillo Payan was exporting stolen tractors from the United States and selling them in Mexico.
- In June 1991, authorities arrested Mark Ancira while he was attempting to transport two stolen tractors into Mexico.
- At the time of his arrest, Ancira possessed fraudulent invoices for the tractors, which listed Payan as the purchaser.
- Payan was arrested the following day when he entered the United States from Mexico.
- Evidence established that Payan and Ancira cooperated in the transportation and disposal of the stolen farm equipment.
Procedural Posture:
- Pedro Carrillo Payan was indicted in federal district court on one count of conspiracy to transport stolen goods and fifteen counts of the substantive offense of transportation of stolen goods.
- Following a jury trial, Payan was convicted on the conspiracy count and eleven of the substantive counts.
- The district court sentenced Payan to a term of imprisonment, supervised release, a fine, and restitution.
- Payan (appellant) appealed his conviction and sentence to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, arguing against the United States (appellee).
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 defendant's conviction for both conspiracy to transport stolen property and the substantive offense of transporting stolen property, where the latter is based on an aiding and abetting theory, violate Wharton's Rule or the Double Jeopardy Clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Wiener, Circuit Judge
No. A defendant's conviction for both conspiracy to transport stolen property and the substantive offense of transporting that property does not violate Wharton's Rule or the Double Jeopardy Clause. Wharton’s Rule applies only to offenses that statutorily require concerted criminal activity, such as adultery or dueling. The substantive offense here, transportation of stolen goods, can be committed by a single person acting alone; therefore, the rule does not apply, regardless of whether the evidence showed two people were involved. The court's analysis focuses on the statutory elements of the offense, not the evidence used at trial. Furthermore, the convictions do not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause under the Blockburger test because each offense requires proof of an element the other does not. Conspiracy requires proof of an agreement, which the substantive offense does not, while the substantive offense requires proof that the goods were actually transported in commerce, which conspiracy does not.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the narrow application of Wharton's Rule, confirming it is a judicial presumption that applies only when the statutory elements of a substantive crime require a plurality of actors. The decision reinforces that the court's inquiry must focus on the statute itself, not the factual circumstances or the prosecution's theory in a specific case. By distinguishing the element of 'agreement' in conspiracy from the elements of the substantive offense, the court upholds the government's broad authority to secure separate convictions and punishments for both the plan to commit a crime and the crime's actual commission, thereby preserving a key tool for prosecuting criminal enterprises.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Payan