United States v. Huet
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 133
| 3rd Cir. | 2012Background
- Government appeals district court's dismissal of Huet's indictment with prejudice; Count Three alleges Huet knowingly aided and abetted Hall's possession of an SKS rifle by Hall, a felon; Hall pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon; rifle seized in a joint Clarion County home during FBI raid; Huet claimed ownership but indictment attributes aiding/abetting; district court dismissed for failure to state an offense and for Second Amendment concerns; Third Circuit reverses and remands, holding Count Three sufficient and constitutional; court reviews de novo the indictment and the constitutional challenge; indictment includes elements, timing, and weapon to provide factual orientation; district court erred by weighing evidence at Rule 12 stage and by imposing a heightened pleading standard; Marzzarella framework applicable to Second Amendment challenge, with presumption for presumptively lawful regulations under Heller; Huet's status as non-felon does not immunize her from aiding and abetting charge
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Count Three sufficiently state an offense under 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1) and §2? | Huet argues Count Three fails to allege how she aided Hall | Huet claims the indictment lacks factual specifics and overreaches | Yes; Count Three is facially sufficient |
| Did the district court err by effectively weighing evidence pretrial under Rule 12(b)(3)(B)? | Huet contends the court went beyond pleading and assessed evidence | Government contends Rule 12 review limited to facial sufficiency | Yes; improper factfinding/weighting occurred |
| Does Count Three violate Huet's Second Amendment rights under Heller/Marzzarella? | Huet asserts aiding a felon in possession burdens protected conduct | Government argues conduct falls outside Second Amendment protection or is a permissible limitation | No; properly brought aiding-and-abetting charge does not burden protected conduct |
| Is a heightened pleading standard required for aiding and abetting under §922(g)(1) and §2? | Huet seeks more specific allegations on how she aided Hall | Government need only track statutory language with time and weapon | No; no heightened pleading required |
Key Cases Cited
- Heller v. District of Columbia, 554 F.3d 570 (U.S. 2008) ( Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms; limitations for felons, sensitive places, and dangerous/unusual weapons)
- Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85 (3d Cir. 2010) (two-step framework for Second Amendment challenges; presumptively lawful regulations apply to conduct outside the Amendment's scope)
- Panarella, 277 F.3d 678 (3d Cir. 2002) (indictment sufficiency; elements, notice to defendant, and double jeopardy protection)
- Kemp, 500 F.3d 257 (3d Cir. 2007) (standard for sufficiency of indictment with factual orientation under Rule 7/12)
- Urban, 404 F.3d 754 (3d Cir. 2005) (indictment sufficiency; time and place requirements)
- DeLaurentis, 230 F.3d 659 (3d Cir. 2000) (limits on evaluating sufficiency of evidence at Rule 12 stage)