Opinion ID: 3063319
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: We review de novo challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. United States v. Futrell, 209 F.3d 1286, 1288 (11th Cir. 2000) (per curiam). Section 1958(a) requires the government to prove that the defendant: (1) used or caused another to 2 use any facility of interstate or foreign commerce; (2) with the intent that a murder be committed; (3) as consideration for a promise or agreement to pay anything of pecuniary value. 18 U.S.C. § 1958(a). Johnson argues that there was insufficient evidence as to his intent to murder because no evidence linked him to the barbeque skewers that the government asserted were the intended murder weapons. Johnson emphasizes that his codefendant testified that the codefendant was alone when he purchased the skewers. Johnson asserts that his plan was to steal the drug money without committing the murder. Despite the numerous references to a firearm by a government witness during the trial, Johnson emphasizes that no firearm was seized. However, the evidence shows that Johnson repeatedly agreed to commit the murder and planned out the murder. Furthermore, on the day that the murder was to be carried out, Johnson put glue on his fingers to hide his fingerprints and discussed using an ice pick, rather than a gun, to commit the murder. Barbeque skewers were found in the floorboard of the front passenger seat, where Johnson would sit when he rode in the car. Johnson also expressed that more important than the money he would be paid for the murder was the money he would make in the drug business, which he thought could only be accomplished through the 3 murder. Therefore, the evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude that Johnson intended to commit murder for hire.