Opinion ID: 1463584
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Murder To Increase or Maintain Payne's Enterprise Position

Text: Payne contends that the evidence was insufficient to establish that his motivation in participating in the murders of Clemons and Newton was to further his position in the Hatcher-Thomas-Hunter enterprise, based in part on his contention that he had been thrown out of the group in 1996 (Payne brief on appeal at 45). Again, we disagree. Section 1959(a)'s phrase for the purpose of . . . maintaining or increasing position in an enterprise engaged in racketeering activity is to be interpreted in accordance with its plain terms, giving those terms their ordinary meaning, United States v. Dhinsa, 243 F.3d 635, 671 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 897, 122 S.Ct. 219, 151 L.Ed.2d 156 (2001). Thus, on its face, section 1959 encompasses violent crimes intended to preserve the defendant's position in the enterprise or to enhance his reputation and wealth within that enterprise. Id. (emphases in original). Further, maintaining or increasing his position in the RICO enterprise need not have been the defendant's sole, or even his principal, motivation. Rather, 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. United States v. Pimentel, 346 F.3d at 295-96 (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the record was ample to permit the jury to infer that Payne was not in fact thrown out of the group in 1996 but rather remained a member of the family enterprise, and that he participated in the Newton and Clemons murdersas asked or ordered ( see, e.g., Tr. 704 (`Boo' gave the order for [Clemons] to be killed)) to do by the principal leaders of the enterprisewith the requisite motivation. As described in Part I.A.1. above, after losing his lieutenant position to Clemons, Payne nonetheless remained a member of the family; Thomas testified that Payne thereafter stayed around to help us if we needed him for something. Both Thomas and Hatcher testified that Payne was upset that he had been replaced as lieutenant by Clemons, and the jury was entitled to infer that Payne's subsequent actions toward Clemonsincluding accusing Clemons of being a snitch who might jeopardize the family's security, advising Thomas that Clemons be killed, and finally shooting and killing Clemons as ordered by Thomasall reflected a desire by Payne to regain his lieutenancy and/or to enhance his position in the family. The evidence as to the killing of Newton was also sufficient to support an inference that Payne assisted in that murder in part in order to maintain his position in the family. The enterprise's purpose in robbing Newton of his 600 grams of heroin was to enrich core members of the family; the purpose of murdering Newton was to minimize the possibility of reprisals for that robbery. Payne was asked to participate by Hatcher, an enterprise boss ( id. at 1499). It was plainly permissible for the jury to infer that Payne complied with Hatcher's request to participate in that murder in order to maintain or increase Payne's position in the enterprise.