Opinion ID: 47531
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: In his second enumeration of error, Williams contends that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his convictions. Williams contends that the case was purely circumstantial and that the Government failed to present evidence to show that he had actual or constructive possession of the drugs and weapons found in the house at 4521 Friden Street. A challenge to the sufficiency of evidence is reviewed de novo. United States v. Woodruff, 296 F.3d 1041 (11th Cir. 2002). We find that there was ample evidence in the record to demonstrate Williams' constructive possession of the drugs and weapons found in the house during the execution of the warrant. To establish constructive possession, “the government may show ownership, dominion, or control over the contraband itself, or the premises or vehicle in which contraband is concealed.” United States v. Guerrero, 935 F.2d 189, 192-93 (11th Cir. 1991). The Government presented substantial evidence to show that Williams had dominion or control over the house in which the drugs and weapons were found, was aware of the presence of the drugs and weapons, and had access to them. At the time of the search, Williams was in the house with his girlfriend, Boardingham. There was evidence that actual title to the house had been transferred among Williams and various family members, suggesting an attempt to 15 conceal its ownership. Further attempts to conceal ownership were indicated by testimony that Williams had transferred responsibility for the utilities in the house to a minor nephew. Substantial evidence as to ownership and control of the house, and as to knowledge of the items hidden throughout the house, came from taped telephone conversations from the jail. In one such conversation, Williams instructed his father to sell the house for “twenty.” The following day Williams spoke to his wife, and objected to her suggestions that his sister owned the house. He told his wife that he had paid the taxes and utilities on the house and instructed his wife to “straighten” his sister out. From his own mouth, it is clear that Williams had primary control over the house and that he was well aware of various hiding places in the house, not only the holes in the floor under the bed and in the wall behind the washing machine, but also hiding places that the police failed to discover. In conversations with his mother, Williams instructed her to secure the house and to recover cash from various hiding places in the house and the back yard to pay for his defense. He also directed his mother to have his wife tell police that the guns were registered in her name and that he didn’t know anything about them. In one conversation he described one of the guns, which police initially suspected of having a silencer, as 16 having only an “extension.” These conversations can lead to an inference that Williams had knowledge of secret places on the property, knowledge of what was stored in those secret places, and had control over the items stored there. Constructive possession was further proved by testimony from Williams’ girlfriend, Boardingham, who testified on direct examination that she visited Williams at the Friden Street house and sometimes spent the night with him. On one occasion she had seen him carry a gun from the sofa to the bedroom where the hole in the floor was. On cross-examination, however, she testified that Williams did not live at the house and that they spent the night there only when they were working late on a recording. She also testified that she had only seen marijuana in the hole in the floor. These inconsistencies may have resulted from Williams’ taped telephone conversation with an unidentified female, whom he directed to send a “little letter” to Boardingham, from a disguised postmark, to encourage her to testify in his behalf. The jury was entitled to believe some parts of her testimony and discount others. In addition to the evidence above, two photographs were admitted which showed Williams posing with handguns similar to the ones recovered in the search. Williams appeals the admission of these photographs, and that argument is addressed below. We find that the photographs were admissible, and they are 17 additional evidence of his knowing possession of the guns. Even in the absence of those photographs, the evidence of Mr. Williams’ control over the house and its contents was sufficient to support a jury’s finding that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of possession of the drugs and guns found in the house. Williams’ contention that the insufficiency of the evidence is demonstrated by inconsistent verdicts from the jury is without merit. The verdicts in this case are not necessarily inconsistent. Williams was convicted on the counts of possession of cocaine, possession of crack, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, while he was acquitted of possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking activity and distribution of cocaine. It is conceivable that the jury could have found that Williams possessed the weapon but did not possess it in furtherance of drug activities. At any rate, it is well settled that juries are entitled to reach compromises and that [c]onsistency in the verdict is not necessary. United States v. Odom, 252 F.3d 1289, 1298 (11th Cir. 2001) (quoting Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390, 393 (1932) (Holmes, J.)). Inconsistent verdicts do not defeat a defendant’s conviction, and “‘[s]ufficiency-of-the evidence review involves assessment by the courts of whether the evidence adduced at trial could support any rational determination of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,’ a review that is ‘independent of the jury's determination that evidence on another count was 18 insufficient.’” United States v. Veal, 153 F.3d 1233, 1252-53 (11th Cir. 1998) (quoting United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 67(1984).