Opinion ID: 176259
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Counsel questions whether the evidence was sufficient to convict White of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin. We conclude it was. “A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence faces a heavy burden.” United States v. Foster, 507 F.3d 233, 245 (4th Cir. 2007). We review a sufficiency of the evidence challenge by determining whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Collins, 412 F.3d 515, 519 (4th Cir. 2005). We will uphold the jury’s verdict if substantial evidence supports it, and will reverse only in those rare cases of clear failure by the prosecution. Foster, 507 F.3d at 244-45. We do not review the credibility of the witnesses and assume that the jury resolved all contradictions in the testimony in favor of the government. Id. at 245. To prove conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, the government must establish “beyond a reasonable doubt that: ‘(1) an agreement’ to distribute and ‘possess [heroin] with intent to distribute existed between two or more persons; (2) the defendant knew of the conspiracy; and (3) the defendant knowingly and voluntarily 4 became a part of this conspiracy.’” United States v. Yearwood, 518 F.3d 220, 225-26 (4th Cir.) (quoting United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 857 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc)), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 137 (2008). Nonetheless, because a conspiracy is, “[b]y its very nature . . . clandestine and covert,” proving its existence is often done through circumstantial evidence “and the context in which the circumstantial evidence is adduced.” Burgos, 94 F.3d at 857. Accordingly, the government “need not prove that the defendant knew the particulars of the conspiracy or all of his coconspirators” or that his connection to the conspiracy was anything more than “slight.” Id. at 858, 861. The “[c]ircumstantial evidence sufficient to support a conspiracy conviction need not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, provided the summation of the evidence permits a conclusion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 858. We have reviewed the record, and find that the evidence against White, including a video and audio recording of White selling heroin to a confidential police informant, was more than sufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict. 5