Affirming §924(j) Aiding and Abetting Liability: Knowledge of Confederates’ Firearms and Violent Practices as Sufficient Mens Rea

Introduction

This commentary examines the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in United States v. Collice Reid, No. 23-11496 (11th Cir. Jan. 28, 2025), which upheld a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(j) for “use and carrying of a firearm… causing death” via aiding and abetting. Reid challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, arguing that the government failed to prove that he shared the requisite mens rea—specifically, an intent to cause death by firearm. The Court applied a de novo sufficiency review, viewed the circumstantial evidence in the light most favorable to the government, and affirmed the conviction. The case involves Reid’s role as a getaway driver and lookout for Onsight, a criminal crew that regularly employed firearms, including automatic rifles, to commit Hobbs Act robberies that resulted in shootings and fatalities.

Summary of the Judgment

The Eleventh Circuit held unanimously that a rational jury could infer beyond a reasonable doubt that Reid, although not the triggerman, knowingly and intentionally aided and abetted an armed robbery resulting in death:

Reid acted as a driver and lookout in multiple armed robberies, repeatedly witnessing confederates discharge automatic rifles and handguns.
Testimony established that Reid had advance knowledge of his cohorts’ routine use of deadly force and knowingly transported firearms to the crime scene.
Reid’s own statement—“I don’t care if y’all have to kill him”—demonstrated awareness and acceptance of lethal violence.
The stipulated cause of death—gunshot wound to the torso—satisfied the § 924(j) death-causing element.

Applying precedent on sufficiency of evidence, aiding and abetting liability, and Hobbs Act robbery as a crime of violence, the Court confirmed that circumstantial evidence need only support reasonable inferences, not eliminate every hypothesis of innocence.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court relied on a series of binding Eleventh Circuit and Supreme Court decisions to frame both the sufficiency standard and the elements of § 924(j):

United States v. Taylor, 480 F.3d 1025 (11th Cir. 2007) – De novo sufficiency standard; view evidence in the light most favorable to the government.
United States v. Cruz-Valdez, 773 F.2d 1541 (11th Cir. 1985) (en banc) – Jury need not exclude every hypothesis of innocence; may choose among reasonable interpretations.
United States v. Friske, 640 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2011) – Circumstantial evidence must yield reasonable inferences, not mere speculation.
Rosemond v. United States, 572 U.S. 65 (2014) – Aiding and abetting § 924(c) requires proof of advance knowledge of a confederate’s plan to carry or use a gun and an opportunity to withdraw.
United States v. Wiley, 78 F.4th 1355 (11th Cir. 2023) – Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a “crime of violence” under § 924(c)(3)(A).
United States v. Tham, 118 F.3d 1501 (11th Cir. 1997) – Felony murder rule: malice of the underlying felony transforms any death into first-degree murder.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning unfolds in three steps:

Sufficiency of Evidence – Applying Taylor and Cruz-Valdez, the Court asked whether any rational juror, viewing all testimony and record evidence favorably, could find Reid guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The answer was yes, given multiple consistent witnesses, video footage, and Reid’s own admissions.
Elements of § 924(j)
- Violation of § 924(c): Reid aided and abetted Hobbs Act robbery (a crime of violence under Wiley), knowing the plan involved firearms.
- “Use”/“Carry” of a Firearm: Testimony showed Reid observed automatic rifles and handguns loaded and transported to the crime scene; video confirmed proximity to a brandished gun.
- Death Caused by Firearm: Parties stipulated the victim died from a gunshot wound; thus the § 924(j)(1) death-causing element is satisfied.
Mens Rea Requirement – Reid contended that § 924(j) demands proof he intended to kill. The Court assumed (without deciding) that intent to cause death might be required but found the record “replete” with evidence of Reid’s awareness and acceptance of lethal violence:

Repeated prior occasions where Reid witnessed confederates firing into victims’ cars and at crowds.
Reid’s statement he did not care if robbery victims were killed.
Specific testimony that Reid saw Onsight members load rifles into the getaway car immediately before the robbery.

Impact

This decision reinforces and clarifies the following points:

Eleventh Circuit tolerates robust circumstantial evidence to infer intent and knowledge in firearms-related aiding and abetting cases.
Advance knowledge of a confederate’s intent to carry and potentially use a firearm, plus opportunity to withdraw, satisfies Rosemond’s mens rea requirement for § 924(c) and by extension § 924(j).
Felony murder liability under § 1111(a) and death-causing violence under § 924(j) can be proved without direct evidence of a defendant’s personal trigger pull, so long as the defendant intentionally participates in an armed crime that foreseeably endangers life.
Future defendants in multi-actor violent schemes will face difficulty disavowing the lethal consequences of their role once they have witnessed or facilitated firearm use.

Complex Concepts Simplified

De Novo Review of Sufficiency: The appellate court conducts its own independent evaluation of whether the evidence could support the verdict, viewing everything in the light most favorable to the prosecution.
Aiding and Abetting (§ 2): One who helps another commit a crime (driving the getaway car, scouting the scene) is treated as if he committed the crime himself, if he acted with intent to facilitate the crime.
Hobbs Act Robbery: A federal crime involving taking property from someone by force or fear, which “affects commerce” and qualifies as a “crime of violence” when it has an element of threatened or actual physical force.
Felony Murder Rule: If a death occurs during the commission of certain felonies (like robbery), the participants can be convicted of first-degree murder—even if none intended to kill.
“Elements Clause” of § 924(c): Defines “crime of violence” as an offense whose statutory elements require the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.

Conclusion

United States v. Collice Reid reaffirms that in an aiding and abetting prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 924(j), circumstantial evidence of prior firearms use, advance knowledge of armed confederates, direct observations of weapons, and the defendant’s own statements can collectively establish both the use of a firearm in a violent felony and the requisite mens rea to cause death. The opinion cements the Eleventh Circuit’s rigorous de novo sufficiency standard and clarifies that defendants who participate in inherently violent schemes cannot avoid liability by distancing themselves from the trigger pull when they have knowingly facilitated and benefited from lethal force.