Opinion ID: 659744
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Molina's Motion for Judgment of Acquittal

Text: 29 Defendant Molina argues that because there was insufficient credible evidence upon which a jury could reasonably find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the district court erroneously denied his Rule 29 Motion for Judgment of Acquittal. 30 We review the record to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. United States v. Roston, 986 F.2d 1287 (9th Cir.1993); see also Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). We find that a rational juror could have inferred from the evidence presented that: (1) Amador-Galvan was the driver of the Ford LTD; (2) Molina intentionally allowed him to pass through the border checkpoint, knowing that he had a load of cocaine; (3) Molina had physical possession over the cocaine at some point; and (4) Amador-Galvan and Molina intended to distribute the cocaine, after it passed through the border inspection. Thus, the district court did not err in denying Molina's Rule 29(a) motion for judgment of acquittal.