Supreme Court of the United States · 2014-03-05
18usc924: author: Fable · not independently reviewed
Case and law context
Role: rule-announced; posture: criminal; jury conviction on a general verdict (principal or aider-and-abettor) for a gun fired at a botched marijuana sale, affirmed by CA10; certiorari on what aiding and abetting a 924(c) offense requires; instruction held erroneous, judgment vacated and remanded for plain-error / harmlessness questions; result: remanded; claim: (c)(1)(A); 18 U.S.C. 2
Uncertainty
None recorded
Misfit
The declared `accomplice` element has no sub-ids for its two prongs (affirmative act; intent/advance knowledge). The Court DECIDES the act prong on the defendant's own account (met) and only ANNOUNCES the intent prong (instruction error, remand). A `satisfied` block under `accomplice` would wrongly count the whole element as an instance, so the decided act prong is under-recorded as not-reached with its deciding sentence in a `held` line. Sub-ids such as accomplice.act / accomplice.intent would fix this (known misfit 3, new for this law).
The ruling is on a jury instruction, with consequence (plain error, harmless error) remanded; there is no scope or holding value for "instruction erroneous, conviction vacated, sufficiency not addressed" (known misfit 2).
Alternative theories under one general verdict (principal use vs aiding and abetting) cannot be tied together: the notation has no way to say the conviction stands if either block is met and that the verdict does not reveal which the jury found.
The intent rule is defined by what the accomplice knew about ANOTHER person's conduct element (the confederate's use/carry) and by timing relative to the predicate crime; these cross-element and temporal relations are prose only. Reserved questions (natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine; incidental facilitators such as a gun seller) are not recordable.
The 120-month consecutive sentence implies the discharge tier (`penalty.discharge`), which the opinion mentions but does not discuss; no block.
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 13
| Case | Qualifying federal predicate offense | Firearm object | Active employment of a firearm | Knowingly possess and convey the firearm | During and in relation to the predicate | Knowing actual or constructive possession |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rosemond v. United States — 572 U.S. 65 (2014) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2014 (18usc924: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | · not addressed | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: rule-announced/merits | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 7–12 of 13
| Case | Possession advances the specific predicate | Armor-piercing ammunition object | Use or carry the armor-piercing ammunition | Possess the armor-piercing ammunition | Section 2 aiding and abetting route | Greater minimum for the same firearm conduct displaces the lower minimum |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rosemond v. United States — 572 U.S. 65 (2014) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2014 (18usc924: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: rule-announced/merits ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: rule-announced/merits ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: rule-announced/dissent | · not addressed |
Elements 13–13 of 13
| Case | Sentencing consequences after offense proof |
|---|---|
| Rosemond v. United States — 572 U.S. 65 (2014) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2014 (18usc924: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rosemond v. United States — 572 U.S. 65 (2014) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2014 — not reached (18usc924: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Section 2 aiding and abetting route | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits claim: (c)(1)(A); 18 U.S.C. 2; theory: intent requirement: advance knowledge that a confederate would use or carry a gun; subject: theory=intent requirement: advance knowledge that a confederate would use or carry a gun Test announced, not applied: the instruction ("knew his cohort used a firearm") let the jury convict even if Rosemond first learned of the gun when it was fired. "Advance" means early enough to have a realistic opportunity to withdraw, not necessarily before the drug crime begins. Desire that the gun be used is not required. Whether the evidence met the test (e.g. the chase after the shots, which the third rule line says can support the inference) is left open; the facts are context, not findings. | intent/advance-knowledge-of-confederate-gun | As Gonzales and Painter ran away, one of the male passengers-but again, which one is contested-exited the car and fired several shots from a semiautomatic handgun.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_572.jsonl#/us/572/0065-01; Unicode character offsets [1420:1583] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f0c846ec9983e04c8b381e694bc1a35315f5560289adff0871b3b0cf70bb2a7b.The shooter then re-entered the vehicle, and all three would-be drug dealers gave chase after the buyers-turned-robbers.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_572.jsonl#/us/572/0065-01; Unicode character offsets [1584:1704] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f0c846ec9983e04c8b381e694bc1a35315f5560289adff0871b3b0cf70bb2a7b.An active participant in a drug transaction has the intent needed to aid and abet a § 924(c) violation when he knows that one of his confederates will carry a gun.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_572.jsonl#/us/572/0065-01; Unicode character offsets [19593:19756] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f0c846ec9983e04c8b381e694bc1a35315f5560289adff0871b3b0cf70bb2a7b.For all that to be true, though, the § 924(c) defendant's knowledge of a firearm must be advance knowledge-or otherwise said, knowledge that enables him to make the relevant legal (and indeed, moral) choice.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_572.jsonl#/us/572/0065-01; Unicode character offsets [20610:20817] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f0c846ec9983e04c8b381e694bc1a35315f5560289adff0871b3b0cf70bb2a7b.Of course, if a defendant continues to participate in a crime after a gun was displayed or used by a confederate, the jury can permissibly infer from his failure to object or withdraw that he had such knowledge.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_572.jsonl#/us/572/0065-01; Unicode character offsets [50886:51097] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f0c846ec9983e04c8b381e694bc1a35315f5560289adff0871b3b0cf70bb2a7b.Under these principles, the District Court erred in instructing the jury, because it did not explain that Rosemond needed advance knowledge of a firearm's presence.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_572.jsonl#/us/572/0065-01; Unicode character offsets [26614:26778] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f0c846ec9983e04c8b381e694bc1a35315f5560289adff0871b3b0cf70bb2a7b. |
| Rosemond v. United States — 572 U.S. 65 (2014) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2014 — not reached (18usc924: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Section 2 aiding and abetting route | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits claim: (c)(1)(A); 18 U.S.C. 2; theory: affirmative-act requirement: facilitating the predicate drug crime alone; subject: theory=affirmative-act requirement: facilitating the predicate drug crime alone The Court does decide this sub-prong on Rosemond's own account of his conduct (he took part in the drug deal but did nothing with a gun): the act requirement is met. It is recorded as not-reached / rule-announced because the declared element is accomplice liability as a whole (act AND intent), which is not decided; see misfit. Both fact lines are Rosemond's version, assumed for the argument. | participation-in-predicate-only | Rosemond actively participated in a drug transaction, accompanying two others to a site where money was to be exchanged for a pound of marijuana.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_572.jsonl#/us/572/0065-01; Unicode character offsets [9324:9469] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f0c846ec9983e04c8b381e694bc1a35315f5560289adff0871b3b0cf70bb2a7b.He did not buy or borrow a gun to facilitate the narcotics deal; he did not carry a gun to the scene; he did not use a gun during the subsequent events constituting this criminal misadventure.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_572.jsonl#/us/572/0065-01; Unicode character offsets [9537:9729] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f0c846ec9983e04c8b381e694bc1a35315f5560289adff0871b3b0cf70bb2a7b.Rosemond therefore could assist in § 924(c)'s violation by facilitating either the drug transaction or the firearm use (or of course both).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_572.jsonl#/us/572/0065-01; Unicode character offsets [13925:14064] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f0c846ec9983e04c8b381e694bc1a35315f5560289adff0871b3b0cf70bb2a7b.It is inconsequential, as courts applying both the common law and § 2 have held, that his acts did not advance each element of the offense; all that matters is that they facilitated one component.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_572.jsonl#/us/572/0065-01; Unicode character offsets [14250:14446] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f0c846ec9983e04c8b381e694bc1a35315f5560289adff0871b3b0cf70bb2a7b.Under that established approach, Rosemond's participation in the drug deal here satisfies the affirmative-act requirement for aiding and abetting a § 924(c) violation.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_572.jsonl#/us/572/0065-01; Unicode character offsets [13257:13424] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f0c846ec9983e04c8b381e694bc1a35315f5560289adff0871b3b0cf70bb2a7b. |
| Rosemond v. United States — 572 U.S. 65 (2014) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2014 — not reached (18usc924: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Section 2 aiding and abetting route | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / dissent claim: (c)(1)(A); 18 U.S.C. 2; opinion: Alito, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part (joined by Thomas, J.); subject: opinion=Alito, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part (joined by Thomas, J.) Agrees with the act analysis and that knowledge of the gun is required; rejects the realistic-opportunity-to-withdraw component as converting necessity/duress (an affirmative defense) into part of the prosecution's mens rea burden. | Unspecified route | I reject the Court's conclusion that a conviction for aiding and abetting a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) demands proof that the alleged aider and abettor had what the Court terms "a realistic opportunity" to refrain from engaging in the conduct at issue.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_572.jsonl#/us/572/0065-01; Unicode character offsets [31268:31525] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f0c846ec9983e04c8b381e694bc1a35315f5560289adff0871b3b0cf70bb2a7b. |
| Rosemond v. United States — 572 U.S. 65 (2014) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2014 — not reached (18usc924: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Enumerated federal drug felony | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits claim: (c)(1)(A); 18 U.S.C. 2 The marijuana sale as predicate was not in issue. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Rosemond v. United States — 572 U.S. 65 (2014) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2014 — not reached (18usc924: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Active employment of a firearm | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits claim: (c)(1)(A); 18 U.S.C. 2; theory: principal liability: Rosemond himself fired the gun; subject: theory=principal liability: Rosemond himself fired the gun The Government's primary theory. The verdict was general, the shooter's identity was disputed, and the Court declines to decide the Government's harmlessness argument that the jury must have found Rosemond fired the gun. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
We hold that the Government makes its case by proving that the defendant actively participated in the underlying drug trafficking or violent crime with advance knowledge that a confederate would use or carry a gun during the crime's commission.
Rosemond v. United States — 572 U.S. 65 (2014) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2014 (18usc924: author: Fable · not independently reviewed)
We hold that the Government makes its case by proving that the defendant actively participated in the underlying drug trafficking or violent crime with advance knowledge that a confederate would use or carry a gun during the crime's commission.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_572.jsonl#/us/572/0065-01; Unicode character offsets [341:585] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f0c846ec9983e04c8b381e694bc1a35315f5560289adff0871b3b0cf70bb2a7b.Rosemond requires intent to facilitate the entire armed crime. Advance knowledge means time to choose to withdraw; knowledge first acquired when withdrawal is unrealistic does not automatically suffice. This is not a general rule that association with an armed offender establishes liability.