Opinion ID: 596126
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: 44 Appellants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting their convictions. We begin by noting the familiar standard of review of sufficiency claims, which was articulated by the Supreme Court in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)--whether, based on the totality of evidence at trial, and all reasonable inferences therefrom, and in a light most favorable to the Government, a rational juror could find all elements of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt. 45 i) Whether there was sufficient evidence of intimidation? 46 Appellants Hicks and Moore argue that mere words--at least words that do not constitute a direct threat--cannot constitute intimidation. We disagree. As we noted in our discussion of the district court's definition of intimidate, that term is not synonymous with threaten. With respect to the evidence presented by the Government at trial, we observe that numerous members of the Continental flight crew testified that appellants intimidated them. In the environment in which appellants' statements 17 were made--the closed quarters of an airplane--the extreme and repeated profanity which they used, when combined with the angry tenor of their words, certainly would intimidate a reasonable person. Appellants' words were not merely indicative of aimless frustration; rather, they evinced extreme anger vis-a-vis particular persons, namely Continental flight crew members. 47 Finally, we observe that it was not merely words, but also appellants' conduct, that intimidated the flight crew members. We note that Hicks and Moore's repeated refusals to relinquish the boombox after being requested to do so, in combination with their angry declarations that the f---ing radio [is] going to stay on, certainly would have intimidated a reasonable person. We also observe that the very real threat that appellants would play the radio component of the boombox, which could have caused critical navigational equipment to malfunction, no doubt was intimidating. 48 ii) Whether there was sufficient evidence of interference? 49 There is ample evidence in the record to support a rational fact-finder's conclusion that appellants interfered with numerous Continental flight crew members' duties. There was specific testimony to this extent from Melissa Bott and Carol McWilliams. There was also other evidence indicating that flight crew members, including a member of the cockpit crew, were forced to ignore their duties as a result of the appellants' intimidating words and conduct. 50 We conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support appellants' convictions under § 1472(j).