Opinion ID: 6330205
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Hofstetter’s Distribution Conviction

Text: Finally, Hofstetter challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her conviction for distributing and dispensing controlled substances outside the scope of professional practice, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Specifically, Hofstetter argues that “[n]o witness testified that . . . [she] ever engaged in prescribing the medication outside the usual course of professional practice . . . or instructed anyone to do so.” (Hofstetter Br. 41.) The evidence, however, supports Hofstetter’s conviction under an aiding and abetting theory of liability. To prove Hofstetter was guilty of aiding and abetting unlawful distribution, the government was required to show that she “(1) [took] an affirmative act in furtherance of that offense, (2) with the intent of facilitating the offense’s commission.” Rosemond v. United States, 572 U.S. 65, 71 (2014). As discussed above, there was more than sufficient evidence to support the jury’s conclusion that Hofstetter took affirmative acts to further the unlawful distribution of opioids, and that she intended to do so.