Opinion ID: 3002581
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Vanschoyck

Text: Vanschoyck first argues that there was insufficient evidence as a matter of law to convict her as an accessory because, she argues, she did not know about the underlying crime. She argues specifically that she did not know how many plants were in the field, and that her lack of specific knowledge precluded a conviction for being an accessory after the fact. That argument is without merit, because whether Vanschoyck knew how many plants there were is irrelevant. Because Vanschoyck challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, is sufficient for a rational trier of fact to have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Brandt, 546 F.3d 912, 915 (7th Cir. 2008). One is an accessory after the fact when one, “knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial, or punishment.” 18 U.S.C. § 3. The defendant merely needs to know about the conduct underlying the crime, not that the conduct itself constituted a crime against the United States. See United States v. Graves, 143 F.3d 1185, 1186 (9th Cir. 1998); United States v. Osborn, 120 F.3d 59, 62‐73 (7th Cir. 1997). The jury could reasonably have concluded that Vanschoyck committed the essential elements of the crime. Police testified that they informed Vanschoyck that they were looking for several men who had been growing marijuana and described Mariscal. Mariscal testified that after knocking on Vanschoyck’s door, he informed Vanschoyck that the police had found the marijuana plot, and that Vanschoyck then provided him a shower, shaving supplies, and a change of clothes. Vanschoyck bases her argument around her claim that she did not know there were more than 1000 marijuana plants on the property. But whether she knew the drug quantity is immaterial. She was convicted of aiding Mariscal. Mariscal violated 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and that statute requires only that a defendant knowingly or intentionally manufacture or possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance; the quantity of drugs is not an element of the offense. See United States v. Martinez, 301 F.3d 860, 865 (7th Nos. 06‐4422 & 07‐1093 Page 5 Cir. 2002). In other words, Mariscal himself did not need to know how many plants there were, so Vanschoyck did not need to know how many plants there were to be convicted as an accessory after the fact. See United States v. Girardi, 62 F.3d 943, 946 (7th Cir. 1995) (accessories need not know drug quantities for sentencing purposes). Vanschoyck also argues that the district court erred because the court admitted testimony about a nontestifying codefendant’s conviction. Specifically, a police officer testified that Patricio Bautista had been convicted of possession with intent to distribute more than 1000 marijuana plants. Prosecutors generally may not mention that a nontestifying codefendant has been convicted. United States v. Ofray‐Campos, 534 F.3d 1, 23 (1st Cir. 2008); United States v. Carraway, 108 F.3d 745, 755‐56 (7th Cir. 1997). Vanschoyck did not object at trial, so we review for plain error. See United States v. DeSilva, 505 F.3d 711, 717‐18 (7th Cir. 2007). It was not plain error to mention Bautista’s conviction. Vanschoyck argues that Bautista’s conviction for possession of more than 1000 plants implied to the jury that Vanschoyck herself knew there were more than 1000 plants. As we have already discussed, whether Vanschoyck knew the drug quantity was immaterial. Furthermore, Bautista and Johnson were charged with separate crimes; he of possession, she as an accessory, so the potential for prejudice was minimal. Vanschoyck was not charged with aiding Bautista, she was charged with aiding Mariscal. Even if the court had erred in admitting the testimony of Bautista’s conviction, that error would have been harmless because the evidence of Vanschoyck’s guilt was overwhelming. See United States v. Curry, 538 F.3d 718, 728 n.2 (7th Cir. 2008); United States v. Johnson, 26 F.3d 669, 679 (7th Cir. 1994). Police testified that they told Vanschoyck that they were looking for fugitives from a nearby marijuana field and described Mariscal down to the clothes he was wearing and that he would be wet from running through the brush. Mariscal testified that he told Vanschoyck he was one of the fugitives and was running from the police. Vanschoyck nonetheless aided him and he was arrested leaving her home.