Opinion ID: 303342
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ferguson's request to charge on mere participation

Text: 17 Defendant Ferguson was found guilty under Count 2 of the indictment of willfully attempting to cause, and assist a mutiny and riot at a penal institution. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1792. He contends that the evidence shows him to have been a mere participant in the riot. He duly requested a charge that Sec. 1792, while it prohibits instigation of or connivance to cause a riot or mutiny, does not prohibit mere participation. The court charged that a finding of willful participation would justify a guilty verdict under Sec. 1792. 18 Even accepting Ferguson's definition of the Sec. 1792 offense, there was ample evidence to sustain the conviction when judged by the standard of United States v. Carlson, 359 F.2d 592 (3d Cir. 1966). But the rule that at this stage the evidence must be looked at in the light most favorable to the Government would not overcome the effect of an erroneous charge. Thus we must consider whether under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1792 a mere participant in a prison riot may be convicted. Ferguson relies upon a dictum in United States v. Rodgers, 419 F.2d 1315, 1317 (10th Cir. 1970) which says: 19 The plain words of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1792 limit the offense to the instigation of or connivance to cause a riot or mutiny and does not include participation therein.With deference to the Tenth Circuit, the plain words of the statute do no such thing. Section 1792 reads: 20 Whoever instigates, connives, willfully attempts to cause, assists, or conspires to cause any mutiny or riot . . . (emphasis supplied) 21 The word assists must be given its plain meaning. One who willfully participates in a mutiny or riot plainly assists . . . any mutiny or riot and thereby violates the statute. Moreover Count 2 also charged a violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2(a): 22 Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal. 23 Certainly a willful participant in a mutiny or riot is an aider and abetter of one who causes a riot. 24 The defendants also requested a charge that certain photographic exhibits showing the nature and extent of injuries inflicted upon four of the officers should only be considered against those defendants charged with assaulting the particular officers depicted in the photographs. The court refused this charge on the ground that the photographs were properly admissible against all defendants charged in Counts 1 and 2 to prove the extent of the force and violence resorted to by the rioters. This ruling was correct. The photographs plainly are probative of the riot and mutiny. 25 In all other instances where the court rejected a defendant's request to charge, the substance of the request was included in the court's charge.