Opinion ID: 710091
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: 45 McClelland contends that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that he acted knowingly and intentionally to cause Russell to travel interstate with the intention of killing Margie McClelland. The court affirms if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Vgeri, 51 F.3d 876, 879 (9th Cir.1995). 46 McClelland's argument merits little consideration because there was more than ample evidence in the record from which a rational jury could have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. According to Russell, McClelland initiated conversations about harming his wife and about killing her. He also drew a detailed map for Russell, asked him if he could obtain some poison, and offered him $10,000 to commit the murder. The jury heard tapes on which McClelland gave Russell money with instructions to buy airline tickets to Denver under a false name, and provided him with maps and a description of where his wife lived. 47 The jury also heard the following tape recorded conversation between Russell, who was in Denver, and McClelland: 48 McClelland: ... [Y]ou would need to kinda make sure you kind of follow her out to the field and use Plan B or C? 49 Russell: Plan C. Okay. 50 McClelland: With that stun [gun]. 51 Russell: All right, all right. And after I stun her exactly what did you need--exactly what did you want after she was stunned? 52 McClelland: I'd I'd (sic) give her a nice good shot with that stuff. 53 Russell: Oh, the poison? 54 McClelland: Hm-hmm. 55 Russell: Oh-h, okay. All right. I thought it was the slitting of the wrists but no-- 56 McClelland: No. 57 Russell: You want me to stun her and then then do the poison. 58 McClelland: Uh-hmm. 59 McClelland's principal argument is that Russell's testimony was incredible, and that the plans to kill Margie McClelland were so fantastic, that a rational jury could not have found that McClelland knowingly intended them to happen. The argument is wholly unpersuasive. Although McClelland sets forth legitimate grounds on which a jury could have questioned the credibility of Russell's testimony, questions of credibility are for the jury to decide and are generally immune from appellate review. United States v. Hodges, 770 F.2d 1475, 1478 (9th Cir.1985). In addition, much of the testimony from which the jury could have found that McClelland intended Russell to travel from Washington to Kansas to kill Margie McClelland consisted of McClelland's own words heard on audiotapes by the jury. A rational jury could easily have found all the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.