October Term 2013 · Docket 12-895

Does aiding a crime require intent to use a gun?

The dispute centers on whether a person who helps commit a crime must intend for that crime to involve a firearm to face enhanced charges.

Official caption
Rosemond v. United States
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Elwood argued that aiding and abetting requires purposeful intent to facilitate the crime.

    Mr. Elwood stated that mere knowing assistance is insufficient for liability.

    Justice Scalia questioned if knowing a crime involves firearms is enough for liability.

    Justice Alito asked if the aider learns about the gun after the crime happens.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests the mental state required for accomplice liability. the side that brought the case argues that knowing a gun is present is not enough. The government argues that knowing a gun is present satisfies the legal standard.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 12, 2013.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the side that brought the case wants the conviction overturned because the jury did not find intent to facilitate gun use.

The government wants the conviction to stand because the side that brought the case knew a gun was present during the crime.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the side that brought the case argues that accomplice liability requires purposeful intent to encourage the specific crime of using a firearm.

The government argues that knowing a crime is being conducted with firearms is sufficient for liability.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Scalia asked if knowing a crime involves firearms is enough for liability.

Justice Alito asked if the aider learns about the gun after the crime happens.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the mental state needed for accomplice liability. It determines when a helper faces charges for a crime involving a weapon. The outcome shapes how prosecutors prove intent in joint criminal activities.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON