United States v. Sharon Kay Simpson
979 F.2d 1282 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under 18 U.S.C. § 2, an individual who aids and abets a violent felony is punishable as a principal and is therefore subject to the mandatory sentencing enhancements of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for the principal's use of a firearm during that felony, even if the aider and abettor did not personally use or carry the firearm.
Facts:
- Mark Grotte and his live-in girlfriend, Sharon Kay Simpson, had previously discussed robbing a bank.
- On February 27, 1991, Grotte told Simpson they were going to rob the First Bank Northtown in Coon Rapids, Minnesota.
- Grotte brought a loaded .357 magnum pistol with him for the robbery.
- Simpson drove Grotte to the bank, a trip of about four miles.
- Simpson waited in the car with the engine running while Grotte entered the bank and robbed it at gunpoint of approximately $28,000.
- After the robbery, Simpson drove Grotte to a motel, where she rented a room for him to hide and count the money.
- Simpson later received approximately $4,000 of the proceeds from the robbery.
- During the investigation, Simpson initially stated Grotte had never beaten her, but at trial, she claimed she was coerced into participating through threats and physical abuse.
Procedural Posture:
- Sharon Kay Simpson was charged in a federal indictment with aiding and abetting an armed bank robbery.
- The prosecution offered Simpson a plea agreement with a recommendation of no prison time if she would testify against the principal, Mark Grotte.
- The prosecution warned Simpson that if she refused to cooperate, she could face an additional charge for aiding and abetting the use of a firearm.
- Simpson refused to testify against Grotte.
- The government secured a superseding indictment, adding a charge of aiding and abetting the use of a firearm in the commission of a violent felony under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
- At trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, Simpson asserted the defense of coercion.
- A jury convicted Simpson on both counts.
- The district court sentenced Simpson to a reduced term on the robbery count but imposed the mandatory five-year minimum sentence on the § 924(c) firearms count.
- Simpson, as the appellant, appealed her conviction and sentence to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth 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 punishing an individual for both aiding and abetting an armed bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) and for aiding and abetting the use of a firearm during that robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) violate the Double Jeopardy Clause when that individual did not personally use or carry the firearm?
Opinions:
Majority - Magill, Circuit Judge
No. Punishing an aider and abettor for both the underlying violent crime and the use of a firearm during that crime does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause because Congress clearly intended to allow such cumulative punishment. The federal aiding and abetting statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2, makes an aider and abettor 'punishable as a principal.' This means the acts of the principal (Grotte) become the acts of the aider and abettor (Simpson) as a matter of law. Because Simpson's actions aided the commission of the armed robbery, Grotte’s use of the gun was legally imputed to her. The firearm statute, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), explicitly states its punishment is 'in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence,' demonstrating clear congressional intent for cumulative sentencing that satisfies the Double Jeopardy analysis from Missouri v. Hunter. Furthermore, the district court correctly determined it had no discretion to depart from the mandatory five-year sentence, as § 2 does not create a separate offense but rather makes the aider and abettor liable for the punishment prescribed by the substantive statute, in this case, § 924(c).
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the broad scope of aiding and abetting liability, particularly concerning federal firearm offenses with mandatory minimum sentences. It establishes that accomplices, such as getaway drivers, who are aware that a firearm will be used in a violent crime face the same severe, mandatory penalties as the principal offender who actually brandishes the weapon. This ruling effectively eliminates any legal distinction for sentencing purposes between the person holding the gun and the person knowingly assisting them. The case serves as a powerful deterrent by warning potential accomplices that they cannot evade the harshest consequences of a crime simply by avoiding direct contact with the weapon involved.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Sharon Kay Simpson