Opinion ID: 2975017
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: On appeal, Appellant relies on this Circuit’s now-vacated opinion in United States v. Arnold, 434 F.3d 396, 404 (6th Cir. 2005), which quoted an opinion from the Ninth Circuit, for the proposition that “mere proximity of a weapon to a passenger in a car goes only to its accessibility, not to the dominion or control which must be proved to establish possession.” Appellant claims that proposition should be extended to any ammunition found in a car in which a defendant is a passenger. Appellant also relies heavily on the argument that because the Cougar belonged to his brother and his brother allowed others to drive the car, the ammunition could have belonged someone else. Finally, in connection with the shotgun, Appellant claims that Raby never saw the shotgun in Appellant’s possession and that there was no evidence that Appellant ever owned the shotgun. Accordingly, Appellant concludes that the evidence adduced at trial “cannot conclusively stand to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [he] possessed a firearm.” Appellant’s Br. 13. -6- No. 05-6866 United States v. Cartwright Appellant’s insufficiency of the evidence claims must be denied. According to Detective Shoemaker’s testimony, Appellant confessed to having possessed a 12-gauge Ithaca shotgun and to having shotgun shells in his car in connection with his attempt to sell the shotgun. This confession is consistent with Raby’s testimony that Appellant approached him and offered to sell him an Ithaca pump shotgun and that Appellant told him the shotgun was in the trunk of the Cougar. Appellant offered no evidence contradicting the testimony of these two witnesses. Drawing all available inferences in favor of the jury’s verdict, it certainly is the case that any rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant knowingly possessed the firearm and the ammunition. Davis, 473 F.3d at 681. Indeed, this Circuit has held that “signed confessions, not suppressed, provide overwhelming evidence of [the defendant’s] guilt and are enough to support the convictions.” United States v. Redditt, 87 F. App’x 440, 445 (6th Cir. 2003). Although the defendant in Redditt signed a confession, this Circuit’s statement in that case applies with equal force to Appellant’s confession in the instant case. Indeed, in support for the above proposition in Redditt, this Circuit quoted the Supreme Court’s statement that was not limited only to signed confessions: “[a] confession is like no other evidence. Indeed, the defendant’s own confession is probably the most probative and damaging evidence that can be admitted against him.” Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 296 (1991) (internal quotation omitted). Furthermore, whether a confession is signed or oral is immaterial if it is believed by the jury, an inference that this Court must draw in light of the jury’s verdict. Paige, 470 F.3d at 608. -7- No. 05-6866 United States v. Cartwright This case is factually similar to United States v. Bennett, 27 F. App’x 431 (6th Cir. 2001) (per curiam). In Bennett, the defendant was convicted of two counts of felon in possession of a firearm, after confessing to the purchase and possession of several firearms. Id. at 432-34. In rejecting the defendant’s insufficiency of the evidence argument, this Court held that “the first element was met by stipulation, the second was admitted in the defendant’s confession and corroborated by further witness testimony, and the third was the subject of uncontested testimony. The defendant’s insufficiency claim thus fails.” Id. at 436. In the instant case, the possession element-the only element that Appellant disputes-in each count was also established by Appellant’s confession and corroborated by witness testimony. Accordingly, Appellant’s argument must be rejected in light of the aforesaid evidence and authority.