Opinion ID: 377122
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: aiding and abetting sufficiency of the evidence

Text: 22 Appellants contend that the absence of a guilty principal precludes their conviction on aiding and abetting charges. They insist that importation by government agent Wade Bailey was not illegal, and therefore they cannot be guilty of aiding and abetting him in the commission of a crime. We find this argument without merit. 23 In order to sustain a conviction on charges of aiding and abetting (i)t need only be established that the act constituting the offense was in fact committed by someone. United States v. Snow, 537 F.2d 1166, 1169 (4th Cir. 1976) quoting Meredith v. United States, 238 F.2d 535, 542 (4th Cir. 1956). We have no difficulty concluding that the government proved illegal importation. Active participation by a government agent, even in the critical act of transporting a controlled substance into the country, does not absolve other participants of the offense. United States v. Gould, 419 F.2d 825 (9th Cir. 1969); Haynes v. United States, 319 F.2d 620 (5th Cir.), cert. den. 375 U.S. 885, 84 S.Ct. 161, 11 L.Ed.2d 115 (1963); see also United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 93 S.Ct. 1637, 36 L.Ed.2d 366 (1973). 9 24 We also reject Platshorn's assertion that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction because his participation in any drug smuggling operation ceased with the abortive Labor Day shipment. He claims the record is devoid of any evidence directly linking him to subsequent activities. 25 The evidence taken in the light most favorable to the government, Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942), shows that Platshorn launched a plan designed to culminate in the illegal importation of a boat load of marijuana to a site on the Brunswick River. To this end he provided funds, counselling and equipment. 10 26 The failure of the Labor Day importation attempt did not dissipate the plan. After the breakdown of the Nature's Way, Phillips told Purvis to keep everything together because he felt sure he would be able to put something else together in a few weeks. The events that ensued also involved Phillips, Purvis and Meinster. 11 According to Purvis' testimony, Platshorn was to take a more passive role because he was under suspicion after the Labor Day events. 12 By remaining in Florida he would divert the attention of the authorities. 27 Other aspects of the December operation show that it was a continuation of the Labor Day plan. Rendezvous with the mothership took place at the identical location selected for the Labor Day operation, and the offloading occurred at the site hand-picked by Platshorn, Purvis and Phillips in August. Finally, Platshorn's own activities and statements 13 following the raid, though not conclusive, support the conclusion that the post-Labor Day events were part of the same criminal plan which he acted to bring about and with which he associated himself throughout. 28 We think this evidence is sufficient to support Platshorn's conviction under the rule set forth in Nye & Nissen v. United States, 336 U.S. 613, 69 S.Ct. 766, 93 L.Ed. 919 (1949): 29 In order to aid and abet another to commit a crime it is necessary that a defendant in some sort associate himself with the venture, that he participate in it as in something that he wishes to bring about, that he seek by his action to make it succeed. L. Hand, J. in United States v. Peoni, 100 F.2d 401, 402. 30 336 U.S. at 619, 69 S.Ct. at 769-770. 31 We find no merit in appellants' other contentions. Accordingly, the convictions are affirmed. 32 AFFIRMED.