Opinion ID: 2804365
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Double-barreled Crime

Text: The government also contends that Rosemond is distinguishable, and thus inapplicable here, because it dealt with a statute which requires two distinct actions. The statute at issue in Rosemond, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), is a double-barreled crime, requiring (1) using or carrying a gun while (2) engaging in a violent or drug trafficking offense. See 134 S. Ct. at 1245. However, nothing about the Supreme Court's mens rea analysis limits its applicability to statutes requiring two distinct actions. When discussing the mens rea requirement for aiding and abetting liability, the Court states generally that the requirement is satisfied when a person actively participates in a criminal venture with full knowledge of the circumstances constituting the charged offense. Id. at 1248-49. The Court then explains that it has previously employed this knowledge requirement in a variety of contexts, including aider and abettor liability for mail fraud and the evasion of liquor taxes. Id. at 1249. Two distinct actions are not required to convict a defendant under either the mail fraud or the evasion of liquor taxes statutes. See 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (proscribing, inter alia, the mailing of a letter for the purpose of executing a scheme to defraud); 26 U.S.C. § 5602 (proscribing the operation of a distilling business to defraud the government of liquor taxes). Finally, the Court applies this same principle — that an aider and abettor must participate[] in a -20- criminal scheme knowing its extent and character — to a § 924(c) offense. Id. That general principle is not limited to doublebarreled crimes. See also United States v. Goldtooth, 754 F.3d 763, 768 (9th Cir. 2014) (applying Rosemond's mens rea analysis to the charge of aiding and abetting robbery on an Indian reservation).