Opinion ID: 702515
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Appellant Hernandez

Text: 63 Hernandez argues that his conviction for hostage taking should be reversed because (1) he was not present on June 5, 1992, when Santos attempted to escape and (2) the jury returned a special finding of fact that the crime of hostage taking was not an object of the conspiracy with which he was charged. Hernandez contends that the evidence was therefore insufficient to find him guilty of hostage taking. 64 Hernandez's hostage taking conviction is supported by the evidence under an aiding and abetting theory of liability. A prosecutor need not charge a separate count for aiding and abetting because [e]very indictment for a federal offense charges the defendant as a principal and as an aider and abettor. United States v. Canon, 993 F.2d 1439, 1442 (9th Cir.1993). 5 To convict a defendant of aiding and abetting, the government must prove that the defendant 65 willingly associated himself with a criminal venture and participated therein as something he wished to bring about.... An abettor's criminal intent may be inferred from the attendant facts and circumstances and need not be established by direct evidence. 66 United States v. Cloud, 872 F.2d 846, 850 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1002, 110 S.Ct. 561, 107 L.Ed.2d 556 (1989). 67 Hernandez points to the fact that he was not present at the scene of the crime on June 5, 1992, the day Santos escaped. However, the crime of hostage taking took place throughout the several days Santos was detained at the drop house. Hernandez aided and abetted the hostage taking during that period: he guarded the aliens with a gun that was registered to him; he beat Santos with a gun because he feared that Santos was causing trouble with the other detainees by discussing the increased smuggling fee with them; and a vehicle that was registered to Hernandez was used to transport the smuggled aliens. A reasonable jury could have found Hernandez guilty of hostage taking beyond a reasonable doubt under an aiding and abetting theory of liability. 68 The district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.