Opinion ID: 3064188
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: To be convicted of bank robbery under § 2113(a), the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, through use of intimidation or force and violence, took money that was in possession of a bank. See 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). Chappell argues that the government failed to prove that he was the bank 7 robber, stressing the absence of physical evidence linking him to the crime.2 The government’s evidence established that: (1) in the month leading up to the robbery, Chappell tried to recruit a friend to help him rob a bank; (2) Chappell was in the vicinity of the bank on the morning of the robbery wearing, like the bank robber, a white “scarf thing” on his head and asking a friend if he wanted to make some money; (3) Chappell remained in the bank’s vicinity just after the robbery and was found sweating and crouched on the stranger’s porch while watching the street–i.e., hiding; (4) Chappell offered the stranger money if he would transport him out of the neighborhood; (5) Chappell was known to wear black and ride a bicycle and the bank robber wore black and fled the scene on a bicycle; and (6) Chappell did not have a job, money or a car before the bank robbery, but suddenly, on the afternoon of the robbery, had $2,500 in cash to buy a car. In addition, the government presented three witnesses, Williams, Sheffield and Gresham, who testified that Chappell confessed to them that he robbed a bank and gave them details that were consistent with the modus operandi of the 2 We review de novo challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and resolving “all reasonable inferences and credibility evaluations in favor of the jury’s verdict.” United States v. Robertson, 493 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 1295 (2008). The evidence is sufficient if a reasonable factfinder could have found that it established the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. McDowell, 250 F.3d 1354, 1364-65 (11th Cir. 2001). 8 SunTrust robber. From this evidence, a reasonable jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Chappell was the SunTrust bank robber. Further, contrary to Chappell’s contention, his conviction did not rest entirely on this “jailhouse confession” testimony, and the other evidence summarized above provides compelling circumstantial proof that Chappell was the SunTrust robber. The absence of fingerprint or other physical evidence does not render the jury’s verdict unreasonable given the circumstantial evidence that Chappell was the SunTrust bank robber. See United States v. Calderon, 127 F.3d 1314, 1324 (11th Cir. 1997) (explaining that a jury verdict must stand “unless no trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt” (quotation marks omitted)).