Court Opinion

ID: 9459002
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 21:07:55.262324+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:58.811130
License: Public Domain

CUMMINGS, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
The last paragraph of Instruction No. 43 told the jury in effect that in order to convict defendant’s daughter, Marilyn S. Velasco, as an aider and abettor under 18 U.S.C. § 2, it must find the defendant Verda Lou Stevison guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. § 656.* Although there is authority enunciating the general proposition that proof that someone is guilty of the primary offense in 18 U.S.C. § 656 is necessary for the conviction of another as an “aider and abettor” under 18 U.S. C. § 2, I entertain some doubt as to whether the daughter must be acquitted of the 18 U.S.C. § 2 charge if the sole reason her mother were not guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. § 656 was, as contended, that the daughter coerced the mother into misapplying the Bank’s funds. 18 U.S.C. § 2(b) states that “whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.” If the defendant’s coercion defense precludes her daughter’s conviction under this statute, then 18 U.S.C. § 2(b) punishes one for causing an act to be done, etc., only so long as that causing does not rise to the level of coercion sufficient to exculpate the person coerced. Similarly, 18 U.S.C. § 2(a), which makes one punishable as a principal if he, inter alia, “commands, induces or procures” commission of an offense against the United States, would not reach commanding, inducing, or procuring that amounted to such kind of coercion. The Government has shown little in logic to recommend such a construction.
Despite these misgivings, I concur in the judgment because at no time during *149the trial did defendant object to the giving of Instruction No. 43. Since an error in this matter would not constitute plain error which must be recognized in order to prevent a miscarriage of justice in this case, I think defendant is precluded from raising it now. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 30, 52(b).

 The last paragraph of Instruction No. 43 provides:
“However, if you find, Verda Lou Stevison [the mother], not guilty as charged in Count I of the indictment, then you must find the defendant, Marilyn S. Velasco [the daughter], not guilty as charged in Count I of the indictment.”