## Facts

- DEA agents arranged an undercover purchase of cocaine from Ernesto Llanos Domenech in Puerto Rico.
- Llanos initially met the undercover agent at a restaurant parking area with Félix Núñez Molina in the front passenger seat.
- During the first meeting, Llanos said he had brought one kilogram rather than the agreed half kilogram and stated that he and Núñez would return to Llanos’s house to cut, reweigh, and repackage the cocaine; Núñez confirmed that repackaging would be necessary.
- Llanos and Núñez left together, consistent with the stated plan to modify the quantity for delivery.
- Later the same evening, Llanos returned to the parking area accompanied by Ruben Ortiz De Jesús, Núñez’s brother-in-law, with an opaque plastic sack on the front seat between them.
- Llanos removed a transparent bag of cocaine from the sack and displayed it to the undercover agent during the renewed negotiations.
- Agents arrested Llanos and Ortiz at the scene; Ortiz had a beeper on his person. Núñez was also arrested in the operation.
- Llanos pleaded guilty as the principal distributor; Ortiz and Núñez were tried and convicted by a jury of aiding and abetting cocaine distribution and appealed on sufficiency grounds, arguing they were merely present.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Núñez aided and abetted Llanos’s cocaine distribution rather than being merely present.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Ortiz aided and abetted Llanos’s cocaine distribution rather than being merely present.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the convictions of Ortiz and Núñez for aiding and abetting cocaine distribution.
- The court held that, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the government, the jury could infer knowing participation by each defendant from the totality of circumstances.
- The court rejected the “mere presence” characterization because both defendants’ actions and the surrounding context supported inferences of purposeful assistance.
- The court remanded Núñez’s case for resentencing while leaving the convictions intact.

## Legal Principles

- Aiding and abetting requires proof that the defendant associated with the criminal venture, participated in it as something he sought to bring about, and acted to make it succeed.
- Mere presence at the scene of a crime, or mere knowledge of criminal activity, is insufficient; however, presence combined with other circumstantial evidence may support an inference of participation.
- On sufficiency review, the appellate court views the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the verdict and does not reweigh evidence or resolve credibility disputes.
- Direct and circumstantial evidence are equally capable of supporting a criminal conviction.

## Conclusion

The court held that the jury could reasonably find that Núñez and Ortiz affirmatively assisted the cocaine sale, based on their coordinated conduct, statements indicating joint involvement in preparing the drugs, and circumstances surrounding the delivery, so their aiding-and-abetting convictions were affirmed despite “mere presence” arguments.


United States v. Ortiz, 966 F.2d 707 (1st Cir. 1992)