Ninth Circus Overruled, Yet Again

[Big Sexy]

PERMANENT RESIDENT ALIEN CONVICTED OF “AIDING AND ABETTING” A THEFT COMMITTED A “THEFT OFFENSE,” AND THEREFORE COULD BE DEPORTED, U.S. SUPREME COURT RULES


A permanent resident alien convicted of aiding and abetting a theft committed a “theft offense,” and therefore could be deported, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last month.

In this case, Luis Duenas-Alvarez, a permanent resident alien of the United
States, was convicted of violating a California law when he helped steal a car. After he was convicted, the federal government claimed that the conviction was for a generic theft offense, and began removal proceedings. A federal immigration judge, agreeing with the government that the California offense is a theft offense for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year, found Duenas-Alvarez removable. While the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, the Ninth Circuit overturned the decision on appeal. The Ninth Circuit held that “aiding and abetting” a theft is not itself a crime that falls within the generic definition of “theft.” The case was then appealed to the U.S. Supreme
Court.

In a unanimous opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court held that one who aids or abets a theft falls, like a principal, within the scope the generic definition of
“theft.” The high court explained that common law, at one time, divided
participants in a felony into four basic categories: (1) “first-degree
principals,” or those who actually committed the crime in question; (2)
“second-degree principals,” or aiders and abettors present at the scene of the crime; (3) “accessories before the fact,” or aiders and abettors who helped the principal before the basic criminal event took place; and (4) “accessories after the fact,” or those who helped the principals after the basic criminal event took place. During the 20th century, however, the distinctions among the first three categories were eliminated, the justices explained.

“Since criminal law now uniformly treats those who fall into the first three
categories alike, the generic sense in which the term theft is now used in the criminal codes of most States covers such ‘aiders and abettors’ as well as principals,” the Supreme Court stated. Thus, an individual who aids and abets before or during the crime is treated the same way under the law as the principals are treated.

Accordingly, the high court determined that Duenas-Alvarez committed a “theft offense” for which he could be removed from the United States under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The case is Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, Supreme Court of the United States, No.05-1629, January 17, 2007.

[BigDawg]

Now if we could send the rest of the thugs somewhere else too, this would be a better place to live. The world needs a large island that noone lives on that all second or third strike felons could be sent to.






Hey how about Antartica, and the island could be governed by Liberals and Democrats!!!!!!! They could all reform each other and sing Kumbaya all day long.

[BEB]

Now if we could send the rest of the thugs somewhere else too, this would be a better place to live. The world needs a large island that noone lives on that all second or third strike felons could be sent to.

Australia's full?

Hawk1, I'm kidding!

[Piggybank Cop]

Now if we could send the rest of the thugs somewhere else too, this would be a better place to live. The world needs a large island that noone lives on that all second or third strike felons could be sent to.






Hey how about Antartica, and the island could be governed by Liberals and Democrats!!!!!!! They could all reform each other and sing Kumbaya all day long.

Send them all to hell.

[countybear]

Bravo for the USSC in creating a valid statement on defining 'principals' to a crime. This could be extremely useful in the future.. I am taking notes.