Opinion ID: 2778510
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: William

Text: William argues that the evidence was insufficient because the testimony of his ex-girlfriend was vague, as she testified that she brought marijuana to William at Kingy’s request “ten to twenty” times, but was unable to specify any exact dates was that this already-cooperating defendant might be killed, such that the Government would no longer have a case against the rest of them. Assuming arguendo that this particular evidence was overly prejudicial under Rule 403, its erroneous admission was harmless in light of the otherwise overwhelming evidence of guilt to support Tibbs’s conviction for the Marijuana Conspiracy, including the wiretapped telephone calls between him and Kingy. See United States v. Sterling, 738 F.3d 228, 239 (11th Cir. 2013). 19 Case: 13-10300 Date Filed: 02/11/2015 Page: 20 of 27 or times. William cites no authority to support the proposition that such specificity was required. To sustain the conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute marijuana, the Government was required to offer sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) an illegal agreement existed to possess with intent to distribute or to distribute marijuana; (2) William knew of the agreement; and (3) William knowingly and voluntarily joined the agreement. United States v. Isnadin, 742 F.3d 1278, 1305 (11th Cir. 2014). Although the Government was not required to prove that William knew every detail or participated in every stage of the conspiracy, it must have established that he knew the essential nature of the conspiracy. Id. Here, that showing was made. William’s ex-girlfriend testified that she held marijuana for Kingy from 2010 to 2011 and that, during this time, at Kingy’s request she would bring marijuana to William, who would then contact someone to come pick it up. She additionally testified that she would hold drug proceeds for Kingy, and that, on several occasions, it was William who brought the money to her on Kingy’s behalf. 20 Case: 13-10300 Date Filed: 02/11/2015 Page: 21 of 27