Rosemond v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1240

Rosemond was charged with violating §924(c) (us[ing] or carr[ying] a firearm) in relation to a drug trafficking crime, with alternative aiding-and-abetting theory under §2.
The shooter’s identity was disputed; the Government contended Rosemond aided and abetted a §924(c) crime through advance knowledge that a confederate would use a firearm and active participation in the drug deal.
District Court instructed the jury that aiding and abetting under §2 required either knowing the cohort used a firearm and knowingly and actively participated in the drug trafficking, which Rosemond challenged.
At trial, witnesses described Perez’s drug sale to Gonzales and Painter, a gun was fired during the attempt to rob the buyers, and police stopped the car.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed, rejecting Rosemond’s argument that the aiding-and-abetting instructions were erroneous, and the case was then granted certiorari to resolve the circuit conflict.
The Supreme Court held that aiding and abetting a §924(c) offense requires active participation in the underlying crime with advance knowledge that a confederate will use or carry a gun; the district court’s instruction was erroneous for not requiring advance knowledge and the case was remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
What is the required mens rea and conduct for aiding and abetting §924(c)?	Rosemond argues the government must prove explicit action to facilitate the gun use.	United States argues knowledge that a firearm would be used and active participation in the crime suffices.	Aiding and abetting requires (1) affirmative act and (2) intent to facilitate the full §924(c) crime with advance knowledge of a firearm.
Did the trial court's instruction properly require advance knowledge of a firearm for aiding and abetting §924(c)?	Rosemond contends the instruction omitted time to withdraw and thus failed the advance-knowledge requirement.	United States contends the instruction captured foreknowledge through its two-part test.	The instruction was erroneous for not directing advance knowledge; remand for proper instruction.

United States v. Johnson, 319 U.S. 503 (Supreme Court, 1943) (aiding and abetting liability extends beyond participation in every element)
Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1954) (knowledge that confederate would take care of the mailing)
Bozza v. United States, 330 U.S. 160 (Supreme Court, 1947) (aiding and abetting with knowledge of the scheme's scope)
Nye & Nissen v. United States, 336 U.S. 613 (Supreme Court, 1949) (to aid and abet, must participate in the venture with intent to bring about its success)
Rodriguez-Moreno, 526 U.S. 275 (Supreme Court, 1999) (crime consists of underlying offense plus firearm use; aiding/abetting can involve either element)
Central Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A., 511 U.S. 164 (Supreme Court, 1994) (two-component framework for aiding and abetting liability)
United States v. Sigalow, 812 F.2d 783 (2d Cir. 1987) (accomplice liability not required to prove participation in each element)
Arias-Izquierdo v. United States, 449 F.3d 1168 (11th Cir. 2006) (government need not prove participation in every element)
Woods v. United States, 148 F.3d 843 (7th Cir. 1998) (accomplice liability for aiding and abetting not require every element)