Opinion ID: 438942
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: 12 Both appellants contend that the evidence produced at trial was insufficient to support their convictions. We do not agree. 13 When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction, the appellate court must determine, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether any rational trier of the fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); United States v. Becker, 720 F.2d 1033, 1035 (9th Cir.1983). 14 The testimony of several law enforcement officers involved in the surveillance and arrest and of the taxicab driver established that both appellants were in the taxicab with the contraband when it was seized, and that Ospina was exercising control over the cab by securing the cab and directing the driver to go to his motel room in Downey. Business cards found in Ospina's motel room, which were properly admitted into evidence, indicated that he was in contact with the other three conspirators and that the meeting at the El Sirrocco Restaurant to pick up the cocaine was prearranged. Further testimony and a hotel receipt found in Cabezas' pocket established that Cabezas had rented the rooms at the Imperial 400 Hotel for the conspirators, and that he arrived at the prearranged corner at the proper time for the transfer of the cocaine. The jury had ample evidence of acts by these appellants in furtherance of the conspiracy to support their convictions. 15 II. ADMISSIBILITY OF THE EVIDENCE FOUND IN OSPINA'S ROOM AND ON THE PERSON OF CABEZAS. 16 Appellants rely on United States v. Ordonez, 722 F.2d 530 (9th Cir.1983), petition for rehearing pending, for their contention that two business cards found in Ospina's room after his arrest and a motel receipt found on Cabezas at the time of his arrest should not have been admitted into evidence. One of the business cards had the phone number of the Imperial 400 Hotel where the other conspirators were staying and appellant Cabezas' room number written on it, and the other card contained the address of the location where the cocaine was transferred into the tote bag and where Ospina, Carrera, and Cabezas got into the taxicab with the cocaine. Ordonez, the only authority cited by appellants on this point, involved the admissibility of some ledgers for the purpose of showing that the defendant possessed a certain amount of cocaine with intent to distribute on a certain date with no other evidence offered to support the charges. The court held there that requisite foundational facts were not presented to support admissibility of the ledgers as admissions, as statements of co-conspirators, or as business records. Admissibility of the ledgers as adopted admissions was not considered. 17 The prosecution contends here that the items in question are not really hearsay in that they were not admitted to prove the truth of the assertions they contained but instead to show the circumstantial relationship of the parties to the scene, to other parties, and to the cocaine. The government contends additionally that the items are admissible as adopted admissions under Federal Evidence Rule 801(d)(2)(B) because the papers were in the possession of the appellants and because Ospina acted on the information written on the cards when he travelled to the address written there to pick up the cocaine. 18 Other courts have held that possession of a written statement becomes an adoption of its contents, and that when a person acts on written instructions, and the instructions are found in his possession, the instructions are admissible as adopted admissions under Rule 801. United States v. Marino, 658 F.2d 1120, 1124-1125 (6th Cir.1981); United States v. Canieso, 470 F.2d 1224, 1232 (2d Cir.1972). Adopted admissions are not hearsay and may be admitted into evidence. United States v. Marino, supra, 658 F.2d at 1125. We find that the evidence challenged in the present case is very similar to that admitted in Marino and Canieso and that it was properly admitted as adopted admissions. 19