Background
Wilber Vigil-Benitez appealed his conviction for one count of murder in aid of racketeering. The offense was linked to the MS-13 gang. Vigil-Benitez argued the district court erred in its jury instructions regarding the motive element and declined to give a requested instruction on mere presence.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the motive instruction for invited error because the defendant expressly accepted it. The court found the instruction correctly stated the law that motive is satisfied if the crime was committed to maintain or increase position in the enterprise. Regarding the mere presence instruction, the court found the district court did not abuse its discretion because the aiding and abetting instruction already covered the substance of the defense theory.
What it means going forward
The ruling reinforces that defendants who accept jury instructions at trial may waive the right to appeal those specific instructions. It clarifies that general aiding and abetting instructions can satisfy the need for a specific mere presence instruction when the evidence supports participation.