Opinion ID: 712827
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: 84 Thierman maintains that there was insufficient evidence to support either his conviction for the substantive charge of misbranding in the first indictment, or for the conspiracy charge in the second indictment. The government claims it presented more than enough evidence to prove each element of the charges. We cannot say that no rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. U.S. v. Quinn, 18 F.3d 1461, 1465 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 2755 (1994). 85
86 Thierman argues that the evidence presented on the count of misbranding for which he was convicted did not differ in any significant manner from the evidence of the other misbranding charges of which the jury acquitted him. The only variances, Thierman argues, were the prosecution's false insinuations that the recipient of the drugs was not a medical doctor, but the package sent to him used the term Dr., and testimony regarding an invoice which did not match the contents label. 5 Thierman goes on essentially to argue that the jury must have convicted him because the mismatching invoice and label resulted in misbranding--a theory at variance with the charging documents. The prosecution responds that it provided much evidence that the GHB Thierman sold during this time period was misbranded because of its deleterious nature. Moreover, the evidence regarding the invoice went to proving the element of intent to defraud or mislead rather than the element of misbranding. 87 Based on the evidence presented, a rational trier of fact could have found all the required elements to convict Thierman of count nine of the indictment. While it is strange that the jury convicted him of only the one count, a reasonable person could believe the drugs were misbranded for the purposes of all the counts, but only find the required intent to defraud or mislead in count nine due to the mismatching invoice. 88
89 Thierman contends that this court should reverse his conspiracy conviction on the second indictment because of a lack of proof on two elements: (1) existence of a conspiracy, and (2) sale of GHB for intended drug use. Thierman argues that there was insufficient proof of an agreement, relying heavily on prosecution witness Maldonado's testimony that he neither intended to break the law, nor agreed to do so with Thierman. Maldonado's knowledge regarding the law matched with his actions belie his contention there was no intent to violate the FFDCA. Further, the jury could infer an agreement from the evidence regarding the concerted action between the alleged co-conspirators to sell bulk GHB. In U.S. v. Disla, 805 F.2d 1340, 1348 (9th Cir.1986) this court stated, A formal agreement is not necessary; rather the agreement may be inferred from the defendants' acts pursuant to the scheme, or other circumstantial evidence. 90 Here, there was evidence that Thierman set up two clandestine labs for manufacturing GHB, shipped GHB to client Antosh, and that he was assisted in this process by witness Maldonado. A rational trier of fact could infer from this evidence that Thierman had entered into an agreement with at least Maldonado and Antosh to violate the FFDCA. 91 Thierman misplaces his reliance on U.S. v. Melchor-Lopez, 627 F.2d 886 (9th Cir.1980). Unlike the present case, a final agreement was never reached in Melchor-Lopez. The defendant there entered discussions about violating the law, but conditioned his agreement on events which never occurred. Here, in contrast, an agreement was reached, and action was taken. 92 Thierman also claims that there was no evidence that he sold GHB with the intent that it be used as a drug. However, there was testimony that he used GHB with client Antosh in order to get high, and that he had knowledge of Antosh's intent to sell the GHB to individuals at gyms. From this evidence, a rational trier of fact could conclude that Thierman sold GHB for intended drug use. 93 REVERSED AND REMANDED.