Opinion ID: 1386403
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Banks next argues that the evidence to convict him on the VICAR counts was insufficient because the government's evidence failed to establish that his actions were motivated by anything more than a desire for personal revenge. [5] We review claims of insufficient evidence de novo. United States v. Odom, 329 F.3d 1032, 1034 (9th Cir.2003). Evidence is insufficient to support a conviction if, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, no rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Daas, 198 F.3d 1167, 1174 (9th Cir.1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). As noted above, evidence is sufficient to convict under the purpose element of the VICAR statute if his general purpose was to maintain or enhance his position within the gang or if the violent act was committed as an integral aspect of his membership within the gang. See Smith, 413 F.3d at 1277; Wilson, 116 F.3d at 1078. For defendants in some criminal organizations, proving the purpose element is straightforward. Such organizations often have clearly delineated rules for establishing, maintaining, and improving one's position within the organization, and the formality of the group's structure makes it a simple matter to determine the relationship between the defendant's actions and his status within the organization. See, e.g., Bracy, 67 F.3d at 1424-25 (describing structure of criminal organization); Concepcion, 983 F.2d at 375 (same). However, formal recognition by an organization's hierarchy has never been required to establish the purpose element of the VICAR statute. In Fernandez, for example, we held that the government need not prove that the defendants, who were members of the Mexican mafia, acted with the purpose of enhancing their position in the eyes of the enterprise itself; rather, it was sufficient that the motivation was to do so in the eyes of individuals or factions within the enterprise. 388 F.3d at 1232. In our prior VICAR cases, we have not addressed violence related to membership in a street gang like that presented here, but our decision in Fernandez implies that the evidence is sufficient for a VICAR conviction even if, for example, the jury could reasonably infer no more than that Banks acted out of concern for his status in the eyes of his little homies within the gang, or his reputation among other gang members generally. Our sister circuits have taken a similar approach. For example, in Smith, the Tenth Circuit upheld the VICAR conviction of a member of the King Mafia Disciples (KMD), a group that had been formed by six individuals in juvenile detention in Salt Lake City. Smith, 413 F.3d at 1264. There, the court noted that acts of violence were a common part of KMD's culture and that members were expected to retaliate against acts of violence committed on fellow members. Id. at 1278. Members were expected to live up to their gang nicknames by committing acts of violence. Id. The court held that together this evidence was sufficient to permit the jury to infer that the crime was committed as an integral aspect of membership in KMD. Id. at 1277 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Similarly, in Wilson, the Fifth Circuit upheld VICAR convictions for members of the Bottoms Boys, a street gang in Shreveport, Louisiana, based on evidence relating to gang customs and expectations. 116 F.3d at 1078. Among the evidence presented was the custom of throwing rival gang signs: Gangs would identify themselves with hand gestures, and one's response indicated whether he respected or dissed the other's gang. Id. The evidence showed that members were expected to retaliate violently when dissed by other gang members. Id. Although the court acknowledged that VICAR does not criminalize mere retaliation for `dissing' an individual or social organization, the nature of the organization, which relied on violence to secure its role in drug trafficking, meant that a reasonable jury could find that violent retaliation for acts of disrespect promoted the goals of[the] illegal enterprise. Id.; see also United States v. Tipton, 90 F.3d 861, 891 (4th Cir.1996) (holding that the purpose element of VICAR was satisfied where the enterprise expected affronts to gang members to be met with a violent response); Fiel, 35 F.3d at 1004-05 (holding that the jury could reasonably conclude that participation in an inter-gang war was expected of gang members); United States v. Boyd, 792 F.Supp. 1083, 1102 (N.D.Ill.1992) (holding that the purpose element is satisfied where aversion to violent acts would invite trouble from other gang members). The evidence presented regarding Banks and the Rolling 60s is arguably less conclusive than that presented in the cases above, see, e.g., Smith, 413 F.3d at 1278 (noting the extensive testimony that acts of violence were a common part of [the gang's] culture), and we believe that a jury could reasonably have concluded that Banks was motivated primarily, or even exclusively, by a personal vendetta against Gilmore. That, however, is not the test for sufficiency of the evidence. Rather, we must ask whether no rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Daas, 198 F.3d at 1174. The answer to that question is unequivocally no. The evidence regarding Banks's purpose in making multiple attempts on Gilmore's life, though not conclusive, would certainly have been sufficient to permit a properly instructed jury to infer that he had acted for the purpose of maintaining or enhancing his position within the Rolling 60s. Several government witnesses testified about customs within the Rolling 60s and about the gang's expectations of its members. For example, Detective Bateson described the types of acts that can cause a member to lose the respect of his comrades and the consequences of that loss of respect. Another witness, a former gang member, testified that the Crips would expect a member of their gang to retaliate violently to the insult of being called a crab; if a member failed to do so, he would be considered a buster and a punk . . . that means nobody's gonna respect you. Furthermore, Banks himself testified that he had enlisted his little homies in the gang to beat up and shoot at Gilmore on his behalf, implying that what motivated Banks to repeatedly attack Gilmore could have beenor had becomemore than a merely personal vendetta. In addition to the evidence involving the attempt on Gilmore's life, the government also introduced evidence of a prior attack by Banks on one Mr. Lindsey. Banks had been previously convicted for stabbing Lindsey in 2000. According to testimony given by two LVMPD police officers, in 2000, the two men had gotten into a fist-fight, and Banks, in his own words, got whooped on. Banks told the police that when his girlfriend learned of the fight, she basically called him a punk and said that being that he's in a gang, being in the Rolling 60s,[] she [could not] believe that he's not taking care of business. She became upset[,] began yelling at him[,] kind of taunting him for not standing up for himself, asking what kind of Crip gang member are you? The evidence of the circumstances surrounding this prior stabbing lends further support to the government's allegation that Banks acted with the purpose of maintaining or enhancing his status within the Rolling 60s. It tends to show that Banks was concerned with his standing within the Rolling 60s and was willing to act violently to preserve it. It also demonstrates that Banks was fully capable of acting with dual purposes. Given the evidence regarding the expectations that the Rolling 60s held toward its members, the importance of maintaining one's status by responding with violence to perceived slights, Banks's own concerns with not appearing weak, his use of gang members to pursue Gilmore, and his prior attack on Lindsey, a properly instructed jury could reasonably have inferred that one of Banks's general purposes was to maintain his position in the Rolling 60s. We therefore decline to reverse the district court's conviction for insufficient evidence.