Opinion ID: 2552536
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Appellant Stewart's Sufficiency of the Evidence Claims

Text: The testimony established that appellant Stewart did not carry a firearm during the robbery. Nevertheless, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, [3] the evidence supported the jury's finding that Mr. Stewart, a felon, unlawfully possessed a firearm in violation of D.C.Code § 22-4503(a)(2). Mr. Washington testified that during the ride to the liquor store he gave [his gun] to [Mr. Stewart], and . . . took it back from him before we entered the liquor store. This account established that, at least for a brief period, Mr. Stewart actually possessed a firearm, and his conviction for this offense stands. Although Mr. Stewart did not have a weapon in the liquor store, the evidence was more than sufficient to show that he aided and abetted an armed robbery. Aiding and abetting is established when the evidence shows that a crime was committed by someone and that the alleged aider and abettor assisted or participated in that crime with `guilty knowledge.' Lewis v. United States, 996 A.2d 824, 831 (D.C.2010) (quoting Tyree v. United States, 942 A.2d 629, 636 (D.C.2008), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1612, 173 L.Ed.2d 1000 (2009)). The government's evidence amply demonstrated that Mr. Stewart could [have] reasonably foresee[n] that the principal[s] [would be] armed during the robbery. Guishard v. United States, 669 A.2d 1306, 1314 (D.C. 1995) (citations omitted). Indeed, he had actual knowledge that the crime would be committed `while armed.' Hordge v. United States, 545 A.2d 1249, 1256 (D.C.1988) (citing Clark v. United States, 418 A.2d 1059, 1061 (D.C.1980)). Not only did Mr. Stewart meet with Mr. Washington, Mr. Fox, and Mr. Smith before the robbery and together plan[] to go rob the liquor store using firearms, but he actively participated in the robbery alongside his three visibly armed co-conspirators. From its very inception, the crime that Mr. Stewart aided and abetted was armed robbery, and his attempt to distance himself now from the armed element of that offense is unpersuasive. On the other hand, the evidence did not establish that Mr. Stewart aided and abetted the possession of firearms during a crime of violence. When the government relies on an aiding and abetting theory to prove PFCV, it is not enough to show that the defendant participated in the `larger scheme' of the armed robbery. . . . Lancaster v. United States, 975 A.2d 168, 175 (D.C.2009); cf. McCoy v. United States, 760 A.2d 164, 186-87 (D.C. 2000) (Under Halicki [ v. United States, 614 A.2d 499 (D.C.1992)], more is required than general participation in the criminal venture for conviction of aiding and abetting the carrying of a pistol without a license.). Rather, the government must prove some act on [the defendant's] part that assisted the robbers in their possession of firearms during the armed robbery. Lancaster, 975 A.2d at 175 n. 5. In Lancaster, we held that the proof of aiding and abetting was insufficient when a defendant aided and abetted an armed robbery without doing anything at all to aid in the possession of a firearm by any of the robbers. Id. at 174-75 (emphasis in original). The government understandably relies on Dang v. United States, 741 A.2d 1039 (D.C.1999), where we found sufficient proof that a defendant aided and abetted PFCV during an armed robbery. We were persuaded there by the government's argument that Dang's concrete actions of blocking the door, guarding a victim, and pointing a knife at another victim `assisted the principals in maintaining possession of the guns' by `preventing the victims from grabbing the gun[s] or from obtaining outside help.' Lancaster, 975 A.2d at 174 (quoting from the government's brief in Dang (emphasis in Lancaster )). In Dang, however, some of the victims moved to assist each other and had to be subdued by threats or by physical force. 741 A.2d at 1042. We agree with Mr. Stewart that Lancaster, not Dang, controls here. Like the defendant in Lancaster, Mr. Stewart did not take any affirmative steps to aid his co-defendants in their possession of firearms: he did not provide the weapons, prevent the victims from seizing the handguns from his co-conspirators, or do anything to assist in their use. Cf. Halicki, 614 A.2d at 503 (aiding and abetting CPWL; there was no evidence that Halicki in any way facilitated the initial acquisition of the weapons . . . or that she played any role in the continued dominion and control over them by [her co-defendants].). Rather than implicating Mr. Stewart in PFCV, the behavior that the government points tostanding in the front of the store, ordering customers to the floor, and warning his accomplices that the alarm had been triggeredspeaks only to his active involvement in the robbery itself. We are not willing to hold that acting as a lookout in an armed robbery is sufficient by itself to aid and abet the commission of PFCV by one's armed accomplices. [4]