United States v. Rodriguez-Moreno
526 U.S. 275 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Venue for a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) for using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence is proper in any district where the underlying crime of violence was committed, even if the firearm itself was only used or carried in a single district.
Facts:
- A New York drug dealer stole cocaine from a Texas drug distributor.
- The distributor hired respondent, Jacinto Rodríguez-Moreno, and others to find the dealer and recover the drugs.
- The group kidnaped the middleman in the transaction, Ephrain Avendano, in Texas to aid their search.
- Rodríguez-Moreno and his accomplices transported Avendano from Texas to New Jersey, where they used Avendano's apartment as a base of operations.
- The group then moved Avendano from New Jersey to New York, and subsequently to a house in Maryland.
- While at the Maryland house, Rodríguez-Moreno took possession of a .357 magnum revolver.
- In Maryland, Rodríguez-Moreno put the revolver to the back of Avendano's neck and threatened to kill him.
- Avendano subsequently escaped in Maryland and alerted the police, leading to Rodríguez-Moreno's arrest.
Procedural Posture:
- Jacinto Rodríguez-Moreno was charged in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey with conspiracy to kidnap, kidnaping, and using a firearm in relation to kidnaping in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1).
- At the conclusion of the government's case, Rodríguez-Moreno moved to dismiss the § 924(c)(1) count for lack of venue, arguing venue was proper only in Maryland.
- The District Court denied the motion.
- A jury convicted Rodríguez-Moreno on the kidnaping counts and the § 924(c)(1) charge.
- Rodríguez-Moreno (as appellant) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which reversed the § 924(c)(1) conviction on the grounds of improper venue.
- The United States (as petitioner) successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is venue for a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) proper in a district where the underlying crime of violence was committed, even if the defendant only used or carried the firearm in a different single district?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Thomas
Yes. Venue for a § 924(c)(1) offense is proper in any district where the underlying crime of violence occurred. The court rejected the Third Circuit's rigid 'verb test,' which focused solely on the location of the action verbs 'uses' or 'carries.' Instead, the Court reasoned that § 924(c)(1) contains two distinct and essential conduct elements: 1) the using or carrying of a firearm, and 2) the commission of a crime of violence. Because kidnaping is a continuing offense that persists as long as the victim is held captive, it was committed in every district through which the victim was transported, including New Jersey. Since the firearm was used 'during and in relation to' this continuous crime, the § 924(c)(1) offense is attached to the underlying crime of violence for venue purposes. Therefore, where venue is appropriate for the underlying kidnaping, it is also appropriate for the firearm charge.
Dissenting - Justice Scalia
No. Venue is proper only in the district where the defendant both engages in the acts of the predicate offense and uses or carries the firearm. The dissent argued that the majority reads the word 'during' out of the statute. The statute criminalizes the use of a firearm 'during' a predicate offense, which inseparably links the two acts in time and place. The crime is not composed of distinct parts that can occur in different localities; it is a single act that occurs only when and where the use of the firearm and the predicate offense coincide. Since Rodríguez-Moreno only used the firearm in Maryland, the crime was committed solely in Maryland, and venue is proper only there.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the government's prosecutorial options for compound offenses like § 924(c)(1), particularly when the underlying crime is a continuing offense that crosses state lines. The Court's rejection of a strict 'verb test' in favor of an 'essential conduct elements' analysis allows prosecutors to bring all related charges from a multi-jurisdictional crime in a single district where any part of the underlying offense occurred. This holding streamlines prosecutions for complex, multi-state crimes and establishes that for venue purposes, a firearm charge is inextricably linked to the location of the underlying violent crime it accompanies.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Rodriguez-Moreno