United States v. Davis
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9570
| 1st Cir. | 2013Background
- Davis, Jr. was convicted of aiding and abetting a false claim against the United States for a 2008 tax return.
- The return claimed a $7,390 first-time homebuyer credit based on a property Davis did not own; Form 5405 details were false.
- IRS found the Dorchester property was owned by Davis's mother and purchased before the eligible period, disqualifying the credit.
- Davis admitted providing information to a tax preparer and cashing the refund, keeping $1,000 and giving the rest to the preparer.
- Jury acquitted the substantive false-claim charge but convicted Davis on aiding and abetting; district court denied Rule 29 and sentenced restitution.
- On appeal, Davis challenges the aiding-and-abetting instruction, any constructive amendment of the indictment, and the sufficiency of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the aiding-and-abetting instruction was legally correct | Davis argues the instruction should require knowledge that the specific false filing occurred | United States contends general knowledge of a false claim suffices | Instruction correct; need not prove knowledge of specific Form 5405 filing |
| Whether the instruction constructively amended the indictment | Davis maintains the instruction allowed conviction for a different false claim | No broader theory was proven; only the Form 5405 falsity was implicated | No constructive amendment; indictment aligned with trial theory and evidence |
| Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain an aiding-and-abetting conviction | Sufficiency fails if Davis didn't know the return was false | Evidence showed participation and awareness of a false claim; intent established | Evidence sufficient to sustain conviction under aiding and abetting standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcia-Rosa v. United States, 876 F.2d 209 (1st Cir. 1989) (accomplice liability need not know details of execution; culpable aider may share intent)
- Hernandez v. United States, 218 F.3d 58 (1st Cir. 2000) (knowledge of specific conduct not required for aiding and abetting)
- RodrÃguez-Adorno v. United States, 695 F.3d 32 (1st Cir. 2012) (aiding and abetting requires participation and intent to assist, not necessarily perform the offense)
- Drape v. United States, 668 F.2d 22 (1st Cir. 1982) (aiding and abetting requires knowledge of the fraudulent nature but not all details)
- Loder v. United States, 23 F.3d 586 (1st Cir. 1994) (government need not prove awareness of all fraud details to sustain aiding-and-abetting)
- Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 (U.S. 1974) (indictment sufficiency relates to notice of offense; jury instructions focus on elements)
- Cola v. Reardon, 787 F.2d 681 (1st Cir. 1986) (notice vs. instruction functions; separation of indictment and instruction purposes)
- United States v. Godin, 534 F.3d 51 (1st Cir. 2008) (de novo review of jury instructions)