Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/660/106/42145/
Timestamp: 2019-07-16 20:40:12
Document Index: 82216738

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 952', '§ 2', '§ 841', '§ 2', '§ 952', '§ 2', '§ 841', '§ 2']

United States of America, Appellee, v. Charles Martin Moorman, Appellant.united States of America, Appellee, v. Stephen Talmadge Brock, Jr., Michael Frederick Lane, Adriantheodore Lane, Joseph Calvin Gioielli, Paulpridgen, and Claude David Cook, Jr., Appellants, 660 F.2d 106 (4th Cir. 1981) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Fourth Circuit › 1981 › United States of America, Appellee, v. Charles Martin Moorman, Appellant.united States of America, A...
United States of America, Appellee, v. Charles Martin Moorman, Appellant.united States of America, Appellee, v. Stephen Talmadge Brock, Jr., Michael Frederick Lane, Adriantheodore Lane, Joseph Calvin Gioielli, Paulpridgen, and Claude David Cook, Jr., Appellants, 660 F.2d 106 (4th Cir. 1981)
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 660 F.2d 106 (4th Cir. 1981)
Argued May 8, 1981. Decided Sept. 24, 1981
Appellants Stephen Brock, Michael Lane, Adrian Lane, Joseph Gioielli, Paul Pridgen, and Claude Cook each were convicted of importation of marijuana and aiding and abetting in the importation of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(a) (1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Appellant Charles Moorman was convicted of aiding and abetting in the importation of marijuana. Each appellant, except Moorman, also was convicted of possession with intent to distribute marijuana and aiding and abetting in possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The appellants principal contention on appeal is that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain their convictions and that the trial court therefore should have granted their motions for judgments of acquittal under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29. Finding these contentions to be without merit, we affirm.
We apply the standard set out in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979), in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence upon Rule 29 acquittal motions. United States v. Shaver, 651 F.2d 236 (4th Cir. 1981). Applying those principles here, we conclude the convictions must be sustained. To prove the offenses of importation of marijuana and aiding and abetting in the importation of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(a) (1), and 18 U.S.C. § 2, the Government must prove that marijuana which emanated from a point outside the territorial United States was brought into the territorial United States and that defendants aided and abetted this act. United States v. Soto, 591 F.2d 1091, 1104 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 930, 99 S. Ct. 2862, 61 L. Ed. 2d 298 (1979).
Actual, exclusive possession is not necessary for conviction of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and aiding and abetting in the possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. A defendant's retention of "an interest in and dominion over" the marijuana constitutes sufficient possession. United States v. Laughman, 618 F.2d 1067, 1077 (4th Cir. 1980). "(P)ossession need not be exclusive, but may be shared with others, and is susceptible of proof by circumstantial as well as direct evidence." Id.