Court Opinion

ID: 9460780
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:00:12.380177+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:46.865615
License: Public Domain

STEVENS, Circuit Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
The mere performance of an act, such as driving a car making a delivery of narcotics, does not make the actor a conspirator if he does not know the character of his cargo.1 Conversely, mere knowledge that a crime is being committed in one’s presence does not make the bystander responsible for the actions of his associates.2 But if the evidence establishes both (a) knowledge of the criminal character of an enterprise and (b) affirmative conduct which contributes to the consummation of the transaction, a jury may properly infer deliberate participation in a conspiracy.3
In this case, proof that Vela was fully informed about the character of the narcotics transaction is overwhelming; for he was present on two occasions when negotiations for the sale of drugs took place at his residence,4 and he was also *851present when the actual sale was made at the Holiday Inn.5 It is also perfectly clear that his conduct in driving Felts to and from the Holiday Inn where the “reds” were delivered was affirmative conduct which furthered the consummation of the illegal transaction. The act of driving the car may have made only a minor contribution to the criminal enterprise. However, since it was performed with full awareness of its significance, it provides a sufficient basis for the jury’s finding of guilt.
The fact that neither Vela’s knowledge, taken by itself, nor his conduct, taken by itself, is sufficient to prove his participation in the conspiracy, is of no significance because it is the combination of knowledge and conduct disclosed by the record that must be appraised. I would therefore affirm the conviction of Vela as well as the convictions of his co-defendants.

. See United States v. Stromberg, 268 F.2d 256, 267 (2d Cir. 1959), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 863, 80 S.Ct. 119, 4 L.Ed.2d 102, which is distinguished in United States v. Cardi, 478 F.2d 1362, 1369 (7th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1001, 94 S.Ct. 355, 38 L.Ed.2d 237, on the ground that Cardi’s knowledge of the illegal transaction provided the element that was lacking with respect to the defendant Snyder in the Stromberg case.

. See Bailey v. United States, 135 U.S.App.D.C. 95, 416 F.2d 1110, and cases cited at 1113-1114 (1969).

. In United States v. Greer, we identified the two general components of aiding and abetting as (1) an act on the part of a defendant which contributes to the execution of a crime, and (2) the intent to aid in its commission. See 467 F.2d 1064, 1069 (7th Cir. 1972). Evidence sufficient to prove those two components may perform the “double duty” of supporting a conspiracy charge as well. See Nye & Nissen v. United States, 336 U.S. 613, 619, 69 S.Ct. 766, 93 L.Ed. 919. In Greer, although the evidence was insufficient to support the count charging Greer with aiding and abetting the substantive violation of transporting stolen copper, it was sufficient to sustain his conviction under the conspiracy count. See 467 F.2d at 1071. In this case I believe the evidence would be sufficient to establish either (a) that Vela aided and abetted the sale of the “reds” or (b) that he knowingly contributed his efforts in furtherance of the conspiracy to sell them. See United States v. Hickey, 360 F.2d 127, 138 (7th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 928, 87 S.Ct. 284, 17 L.Ed.2d 210.

. Concerning the first occasion, Joseph Hale testified:
Q At that location of 3509% Indiana Avenue, did you have further discussion with Rick Felts in the presence of Ralph Vela about drugs or anything like that?
A Yes, we did.
Q What was the conversation?
A Rick said that he mainly dealt in marijuana, but he had a friend who handled a lot of reds and, you know, the different kinds of downers, and he had made several trips up to Detroit to buy some cocaine and bring back to town, and that he had just come back from the west coast with about 60 pounds of marijuana.
Q On that visit with Rick Felts and Ralph Vela at 3509% Indiana, did you observe any drugs at that location at that time?
*851A Yes, sir, he had a suitacase with about six bags of marijuana in that that looked like, you know, about what I would say weighed about a pound each, and he had a little bag of cocaine.
Tr. 59. See also Tr. 93-95.
Concerning the second occasion, Hale testified :
Q Was the Defendant Ralph Yela also present?
A Yes, he was.
Q Did you introduce those two individuals to Agent Schabilion?
A Yes, I did.
Q Did the Defendant Rick Felts have a discussion with you and Agent Schabilion at that time?
A Yes, lie did.
Q What did he say to you?
A He said that in order to get these reds that he had to get hold of his other man that he done the business with, which was Kirk Baker, and he wanted us to go over there to Baker’s residence with him at that time.
THE COURT: Just a minute. I again want to point out at this point that this witness has testified that this conversation occurred in the presence of two of the Defendants.
Tr. 61. Although Schabilion testified that he “believed” Vela was seated in another room during this conversation, Tr. 127, the jury was entitled to credit Hale’s version as quoted above.

. Hale testified as follows:
Q Who came to your room?
A Rick Felts, Ralph Vela, and another man named Hans. .
Q What happened on that occasion when they came to see you?
A They came over about 1:35 in the afternoon, and Rick got out the five bags of reds, out of his coat pocket, which • contained 100 each, and he sold these reds to the Agent for one hundred and a half.
Q $150.00?
A Yes.
Q Did Agent Schabilion give him $150 in cash?
A Yes, he did.
Q Those three individuals left the apartment then?
A Yes. They left about 1:50 in the afternoon.
Q Did you see what vehicle they left in?
A Yes. See, they arrived and left in a ’66 Pontiac and Ralph was driving it.
Q Defendant Ralph Vela was driving it?
A Yes.
Tr. 69-70. See also Tr. 108-109; 138-39; 186-87; 197-98; 279-80.