United States v. Samuel B. Hewitt and Bobby Gene Chesser
663 F.2d 1381, 9 Fed. R. Serv. 835, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 15085 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To convict a defendant of aiding and abetting a federal offense, the government must prove that the defendant associated with the criminal venture by sharing the principal's criminal intent and participated in it by committing an overt act designed to make it succeed; participation in every phase of the crime or having a financial stake is not required.
Facts:
- Samuel B. Hewitt owned an interest in the Village Grocery, which was experiencing financial difficulty.
- In early May 1979, Hewitt met with Bobby Gene Chesser and others, complaining about the store's problems.
- Chesser proposed that Roger Bedsole and Larry Crook burn down the Village Grocery and suggested Hewitt should "straighten out his insurance on the business."
- Bedsole and Crook agreed to set the fire for $1,000.
- Later that evening, Chesser, Hewitt, and the others drove to the Village Grocery to discuss the means of destroying the store.
- In late July 1979, Hewitt instructed Bedsole to proceed with the arson, paying him a $300 advance.
- Bedsole subsequently hired Jerry Eugene Smith for $500 to actually set the fire.
- On August 12, 1979, Smith and an accomplice used ten gallons of gasoline and a homemade ignition device to start a fire at the store, causing an explosion and partial destruction.
- Hewitt later collected over $5,800 in insurance proceeds through the mail.
Procedural Posture:
- Bobby Gene Chesser and Samuel B. Hewitt were charged by indictment in a United States district court (trial court).
- Chesser was charged with aiding and abetting the use of an explosive to commit a felony.
- Hewitt was charged with the same offense as Chesser, as well as two counts of mail fraud.
- Following a trial, a jury found both defendants guilty on their respective counts.
- Chesser and Hewitt (appellants) appealed their convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth 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 a person aid and abet the use of an explosive to commit a felony when they propose the crime, suggest collecting insurance proceeds, and connect the property owner with the individuals who agree to commit the arson, even if they do not participate in the final execution of the crime?
Opinions:
Majority - Vance, Circuit Judge
Yes. A person aids and abets a criminal offense when they associate with the criminal venture and take action to help it succeed. To convict for aiding and abetting, the government is not required to show that the defendant participated in every phase of the criminal enterprise. Rather, it must prove two elements: 1) association with the venture, meaning the defendant shared the criminal intent of the principal, and 2) participation in the venture, meaning the defendant committed an overt act designed to aid its success. In this case, Chesser shared the criminal intent because he was the one who originally counseled Hewitt to destroy the grocery store to fraudulently obtain insurance proceeds. Chesser participated through overt acts by not only originating the plan but also by 'personally cementing the connection between Hewitt and Bedsole for the purpose of committing the offense.' The court held that it is not necessary for an aider and abettor to have a financial stake in the crime's outcome.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the broad scope of accomplice liability under the federal aiding and abetting statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2. It clarifies that instigating a crime and connecting the principal actors constitutes sufficient participation, even without direct involvement in the crime's execution or a financial interest in its success. The ruling strengthens the government's ability to prosecute individuals who act as masterminds or facilitators but remain removed from the actual commission of the offense. By clearly applying the two-part test of association (intent) and participation (overt act), the case serves as a strong precedent for holding planners and brokers of criminal activity accountable as principals.
