1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Eddie Patterson, 

Defendant. 

No. CR-15-01577-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Defendant Eddie Patterson has filed a motion for judgment of acquittal under 

Rule 29(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Doc. 101. The government has 

filed a response. Doc. 105. No reply has been filed. The Court will deny the motion. 

 Count 4 of the Superseding Indictment contains this allegation: 

 On or about January 31, 2014, in the District of Arizona, within the 

confines of the San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation, Indian Country, 

defendant, EDDIE PATTERSON, an Indian, did knowingly engage in a 

sexual act with John Doe who had attained the age of 12 years but had not 

attained the age of 16 years and who was at least 4 years younger than 

EDDIE PATTERSON. The sexual act included the contact between the 

mouth of EDDIE PATTERSON and the penis of John Doe. 

Doc. 52 at 2. The jury found Defendant guilty on this count, and Defendant now argues 

that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict. 

 Rule 29 authorizes a court to set aside a guilty verdict and enter an acquittal if the 

evidence introduced at trial was insufficient to sustain a conviction. Fed. R. Crim. P. 

29(c). The Court must review the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, 

Case 2:15-cr-01577-DGC Document 107 Filed 03/01/17 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States v. Ching Tang Lo, 447 F.3d 1212, 1221 (9th Cir. 2006), and deny a motion 

for acquittal if any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a 

reasonable doubt, United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 2010). 

 The victim in this case testified during trial that Defendant placed his mouth on the 

victim’s penis. See Doc. 105 at 2-4 (quoting trial testimony). The testimony was clear 

and explicit. Id. Defendant contends that the victim was not credible because he gave 

differing accounts of the relevant events, but those differing accounts were brought out at 

trial and “it is not the district court’s function to determine witness credibility when 

ruling on a Rule 29 motion.” United States v. Alarcon-Simi, 300 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th 

Cir. 2002). Rather, “a district court must bear in mind that ‘it is the exclusive function of 

the jury to determine the credibility of witnesses, resolve evidentiary conflicts, and draw 

reasonable inferences from proven facts.’” United States v. Rojas, 554 F.2d 938, 943 

(9th Cir. 1977) (citation omitted). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

government, the Court cannot say that the victim so lacked credibility that no rational 

jury could have found Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 

 Defendant argues that the victim’s testimony was uncorroborated. But “[i]t is well 

established that the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness may be sufficient to 

sustain a conviction.” United States v. Katakis, 800 F.3d 1017, 1028 (9th Cir. 2015) 

(quoting United States v. Dodge, 538 F.2d 770, 783 (8th Cir. 1976)). The Court finds the 

victim’s testimony sufficient in this case. 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Rule 29 motion (Doc. 101) is denied. 

 Dated this 1st day of March, 2017. 

Case 2:15-cr-01577-DGC Document 107 Filed 03/01/17 Page 2 of 2