United States v. Rosario-Diaz
53 Fed. R. Serv. 1448, 202 F.3d 54, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 1183 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To be convicted of aiding and abetting a specific offense, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had foreknowledge that the principal would likely commit that specific crime. A general suspicion that some unlawful act may occur is insufficient when the committed offense is merely one of several possibilities.
Facts:
- Ralph Rosario-Diaz, head of a drug ring, believed Edna Rivera-Hernandez possessed $200,000 of his drug money from a deceased associate.
- Rosario-Diaz hired Gregorio Aponte-Lazú to retrieve the money from Edna and instructed him to kill her and make it look like a robbery if she refused.
- To assist Aponte-Lazú, Rosario-Diaz provided Edna's home address, the location of the college she attended, and the make, color, and partial license plate number of her car.
- Wilson Montalvo-Ortiz, an associate of Rosario-Diaz, was present during the planning and instructed Aponte-Lazú not to rape Edna but affirmed that he should kill her if necessary.
- On the day of the crime, Rosario-Diaz and Montalvo-Ortiz informed Aponte-Lazú that Edna would be at a doctor's office, not her school.
- Aponte-Lazú recruited Ada Melendez-Garcia, Juan Baez-Jurado, and Wilfredo Lopez-Morales to assist him.
- The group located Edna outside the doctor's office, forced her into her own car at knifepoint, and drove away in her vehicle.
- After abducting her in her car, the group robbed, sexually assaulted, and ultimately murdered Edna.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury indicted Ralph Rosario-Diaz, Wilson Montalvo-Ortiz, and three others for (1) aiding and abetting a carjacking resulting in death and (2) conspiracy to commit carjacking.
- Co-defendant Gregorio Aponte-Lazú pled guilty and agreed to testify for the government.
- The remaining five defendants were tried before a jury in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.
- The district court denied the defendants' pre-trial motions to suppress evidence.
- The jury found all five defendants guilty on both counts.
- The district court denied the defendants' motion for a new trial.
- The district court sentenced each defendant to concurrent life sentences on both counts.
- The five convicted defendants appealed their convictions and sentences to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First 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 providing general information about a victim, including her home address, school, and car details, for the purpose of a robbery and potential murder, constitute sufficient evidence to prove the foreknowledge required to convict a defendant for aiding and abetting the specific crime of carjacking?
Opinions:
Majority - Torruella, Chief Judge
No. Providing general information that creates multiple possible scenarios for a crime does not establish the requisite foreknowledge to support a conviction for aiding and abetting the specific crime of carjacking. To sustain a conviction for aiding and abetting, the government must prove the defendant consciously shared the principal's knowledge of the specific underlying criminal act. Here, the information given to Aponte-Lazú by Rosario-Diaz and Montalvo-Ortiz made a carjacking merely one of many possibilities for confronting the victim, including burglary or a street confrontation. There was no evidence that a carjacking was ever mentioned or was more likely than any other method. Therefore, their knowledge amounted to only a 'general suspicion' of criminal activity, which is insufficient to prove they aided and abetted the specific federal offense of carjacking. For the same reason, their convictions for conspiracy to commit carjacking must also be reversed. The convictions of the other three appellants, who were direct participants, are affirmed as there was sufficient evidence of their involvement.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the mens rea standard for aiding and abetting liability, emphasizing the requirement of specific foreknowledge of the principal's crime. It creates a higher evidentiary bar for prosecutors seeking to convict upstream organizers for the specific crimes committed by their subordinates, especially when the initial instructions are general enough to permit multiple criminal methods. The case serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of precise prosecutorial charging; had the defendants been charged with conspiracy to commit robbery and murder, the outcome for Rosario-Diaz and Montalvo-Ortiz would likely have been different. The ruling underscores that a defendant's culpability for a broad criminal scheme does not automatically translate to guilt for every specific federal crime committed in furtherance of that scheme.
