Opinion ID: 2669163
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Alternative Methods of Establishing Motive

Text: Mr. Daniel Maumau’s first challenge is based on his reading of United States v. Smith, 413 F.3d 1253 (10th Cir. 2005), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Hutchinson, 573 F.3d 1011, 1021 (10th Cir. 2009). In Smith, we concluded that the Government need only prove that the “crime was ‘committed as an integral aspect of membership’” in the enterprise to establish this element of a § 1959(a) offense, not that the defendant’s “sole or principal motive for conspiring to murder . . . was to maintain or increase his position in [the enterprise] in order for it to convict Mr. Smith under § 1959(a).” 413 F.3d at 1277-78 (quoting United States v. Thai, 29 F.3d 785, 817 (2d Cir. 1994)). We added that “‘the motive requirement is satisfied if the jury could properly infer that the defendant committed his violent crime because he knew it was expected of him by reason of his membership in the enterprise or that he committed it in furtherance of that membership.’” Id. at 1278 (emphasis added; quoting United States v. Dhinsa, 243 F.3d 635, 671 (2d Cir. 2001)). Mr. Daniel Maumau’s argument is based on reading the “or” in this sentence in the conjunctive. Under his reading, the prosecution would have to establish two purposes: (1) that the defendant committed the violent crime because he knew it 48 was expected of him due to his membership, and (2) that the defendant committed the violent crime to further his membership. Instead, we read Smith’s language in the disjunctive. After all, in Smith, we used the word “or” rather than “and.” 16 Thus, we conclude that the district court did not have to require the jury to find that Mr. Daniel Maumau had fired the gun because he knew it was expected of him as a TCG member and that he had fired the gun in furtherance of that membership. Under Smith, either one would have sufficed. We also reject Mr. Daniel Maumau’s argument regarding the failure to include the second, alternative method of finding the required motive. This alternative would have made it easier to convict Mr. Daniel Maumau on this count; thus, even if the omission involved error, the error worked to the Defendant’s benefit.