Opinion ID: 688529
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Denial of Judgment of Acquittal

Text: 5 We review de novo the legal determination whether a verdict may be upset because it is inconsistent with an acquittal. United States v. Hart, 963 F.2d 1278, 1280 (9th Cir. 1992). The test to be applied is the same as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. United States v. Lessard, 17 F.3d 303, 304 (9th Cir. 1994). Consequently, this court must review the evidence presented against the defendant in a light most favorable to the government to determine whether 'any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.' United States v. Shirley, 884 F.2d 1130, 1134 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)) (emphasis in original). 6 MacDonald contends there was insufficient proof of intent to defraud under the mail fraud statute and to deceive under the false statement statute. Conviction under the mail fraud statute requires proof of two elements: (1) existence of a scheme to defraud, and (2) 'using or causing the use of the mails in furtherance of the scheme.' United States v. Stein, 37 F.3d 1407, 1408-09 (9th Cir. 1994). Similarly, [t]o willfully make a false statement in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001, the defendant must have the specific intent to make a false statement. United States v. Heuer, 4 F.3d 723, 732 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 1190 (1994) (citations omitted). 7 MacDonald concedes that the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of a scheme to defraud sellers, investors, and HUD, but denies any knowledge of the scheme and claims she unwittingly followed her husband's directions. 8 The evidence at trial established that Victoria MacDonald played an important role in the ongoing management of the business. She knew the sellers would not be paid, that properties were double-encumbered, and that HUD was deceived. She was Secretary/Treasurer of MCDC and Rainport. Employees testified that she opened all the mail, handled billing receipts, had sole access to bank accounts, signed all the checks, did payroll, and compiled tax information. She also was involved in property transactions and the accompanying misrepresentations. She informed investors of property availability and instructed them to lie to HUD. She had investors sign a blank deed, which she would fill in, then type second before trust deed and mail it to the original seller. She fielded complaints from the sellers. Her common response was to either ignore complaints or assure that payment was coming. Given this information, a rationale trier of fact could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that MacDonald was aware of a scheme and had the specific intent to defraud the investors, sellers, and HUD and that she intentionally participated in the scheme. We find sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict for both the mail fraud and making false statements.