Court Opinion

ID: 9483642
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 09:27:37.695554+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:49:45.429018
License: Public Domain

BEAM, Circuit Judge,
concurring specially, with whom LOKEN, Circuit Judge, joins.
Although I concur in the result reached in this case, I write separately to express my discomfort with the aiding and abetting instruction and with the verdict form used in this case. Aiding and abetting was not charged in the indictment. My review of the record shows that the government prosecuted this case throughout the trial as if Clark were the principal. One cannot aid and abet himself. United States v. Horton, 921 F.2d 540, 543 (4th Cir.1990), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 2860, 115 L.Ed.2d 1027 (1991). The request for an aiding and abetting instruction appears to have been an eleventh-hour attempt at a fallback theory of liability. Clark’s defense was based on the idea that, since he did not own the land and did not reside there most of the time, the marijuana could have been planted by someone else. Advance knowledge of the government’s intention to pursue an aiding and abetting theory might have changed Clark’s defense strategy. Although I agree that the facts are sufficient, though barely, to warrant submission of an aiding and abetting instruction to the jury, I would be more comfortable with the government’s actions had Clark been afforded notice of the government’s intention to proceed on an aiding and abetting theory.
The verdict form used in the case does not show whether the jury convicted Clark of committing the principal act or of aiding and abetting it. In this case, the distinction is of no consequence and constitutes harmless error because the evidence was sufficient to convict under either theory. Use of a special verdict form would obviate the potential for reversible error in a case where the evidence did not support a conviction as to either one or the other.
In addition, I note that, even though aiding and abetting is presumed in every indictment, last minute government tactics of this sort could, in another case, run afoul of constitutional fair notice requirements. See, e.g., United States v. Galloway, 976 F.2d 414, 438 (8th Cir.1992) (Bright, J., dissenting).