Opinion ID: 778993
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sufficiency of the Evidence as to Each Element of the Crime

Text: 12 We apply a particularly deferential standard of review to a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence supporting a jury verdict. United States v. Cothran, 286 F.3d 173, 175 (3d Cir.2002) (quoting United States v. Dent, 149 F.3d 180, 187 (3d Cir.1998)). If any rational juror could have found the challenged elements beyond a reasonable doubt, viewing the evidence in the manner that is most favorable to the government, neither reweighing evidence, nor making an independent determination as to witnesses' credibility, we will sustain the verdict. Id. Further, Peppers concedes that he did not preserve an objection to the sufficiency of the evidence. We will therefore examine the record only for plain error. United States v. Wolfe, 245 F.3d 257, 260-61 (3d Cir.2001) ( citing United States v. Turcks, 41 F.3d 893, 898 (3d Cir.1994)). Thus, Peppers must establish that the error prejudiced the jury's verdict, and even if it did, we may — but are not mandated — to correct the error. Turcks, 41 F.3d at 897. In determining whether to correct the error, we consider the impact of the error on the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. We do not need to go so far here, however, for we find that there is evidence — though not overwhelming or entirely consistent — from which the jurors could have found each element of the challenged offense.
13 The government's charge that Peppers violated § 924(j) (Count I of the Second Superseding Indictment) alleged that he 14 did intentionally and knowingly unlawfully cause the death of Jorge Drake through the use of a firearm that the defendant, Ronnie Peppers, used and carried during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime for which he may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, that is conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute controlled substances. 15 Peppers now claims that even if the evidence at trial permitted the jury to find that Peppers shot and robbed Drake, there was no evidence that the killing was in any way related to a conspiracy to distribute or to possess with the intent to distribute controlled substances. There was abundant testimony in the record that Peppers was a drug dealer. 5 But Peppers argues that the government's strongest evidence that he ever conspired with someone to distribute controlled substances related to events that took place after Drake had died, namely, a purported agreement between Peppers and David Miller to distribute crack cocaine to a person in Lancaster in November 1997. There was no testimony presented to link Miller to Drake. However, Miller testified that Peppers had provided him with substances for distribution over the course of six months, even though the only testimony about an express agreement between the two to distribute controlled substances occurred in November 1997. We have little difficulty concluding that the jury could infer from Miller's testimony that an agreement to distribute with Miller had been in effect for some time prior to Drake's death. Further, and perhaps more importantly, there was evidence directly related to a conspiracy with Waters, the lookout during Drake's shooting, to distribute controlled substances on the night in question. Waters testified at a preliminary hearing prior to his death, so the preliminary hearing testimony was read into the record at trial. He testified that he and Peppers had seen Drake on the afternoon of Drake's death, and Peppers had arranged for Waters to act as lookout while Peppers robbed Drake. On cross-examination, Waters was asked what Peppers said to him specifically. He replied, I'm going to do a stick-up, watch my back, you get half the money and the drugs. Also on cross-examination, Waters testified that Peppers was going to hit Drake that night, and that hit means rob. When asked if details were discussed, Waters replied: Just rob him, take his drugs. In his direct testimony, Waters stated that after the murder, Peppers gave him three bags of crack. On cross-examination, the following exchange took place: 16 Q All you got out of it was some crack cocaine? 17 A Yeah. 18 Q Did you see that crack cocaine? A I tricked with it. 6 19 Q How much was it worth? 20 A $60. 21 Q Is that all you got out of this? 22 A Yeah. 23 Q So a man was killed and all you got out of it was $60? 24 A Yes, sir. 25 The two neighborhood eyewitnesses both testified that they saw the shooter reach into the car and remove something. This testimony would clearly support a finding that one of the purposes of the robbery was to take drugs, that Peppers had promised Waters that he would share the proceeds from the robbery with him, and that Peppers had taken drugs from Drake, had given part of those drugs to Waters, and Waters had in turn sold those drugs for $60. Thus, we find that any rational juror could have found that Peppers caused Drake's death intentionally and knowingly unlawfully ... through the use of a firearm that [he] used and carried during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime for which he may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, that is conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute controlled substances. Accordingly, Peppers' challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is without merit. 26