Opinion ID: 791081
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: 14 Arguing the government's evidence at trial was equally strong to infer [his] innocence ... as to infer his guilt, Claybourne contends the district court erroneously denied his motions for judgment of acquittal. Claybourne confronts a high hurdle when attacking the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction, as we must employ a very strict standard of review on this issue. United States v. Cook, 356 F.3d 913, 917 (8th Cir.2004). We must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, resolving evidentiary conflicts in favor of the government, and accepting all reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence that support the jury's verdict. Id. (citation omitted). We will reverse only if we decide no reasonable jury could have found Claybourne guilty. Id. 15 To convict Claybourne under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), 3 the government had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) [Claybourne] had previously been convicted of a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year; (2) [Claybourne] knowingly possessed a firearm; [and] (3) the firearm has been in or has affected interstate commerce. United States v. Maxwell, 363 F.3d 815, 818 (8th Cir.2004). Because the parties stipulated to the first and third elements, the government had to prove only that Claybourne knowingly possessed a firearm. 16 The government could prove Claybourne knowingly possessed the firearm if he had actual or constructive possession of the firearm, and possession of the firearm could have been sole or joint. United States v. Walker, 393 F.3d 842, 846-47 (8th Cir.2005). Constructive possession of the firearm is established if the person has dominion over the premises where the firearm is located, or control, ownership, or dominion over the firearm itself. United States v. Boykin, 986 F.2d 270, 274 (8th Cir.1993). 17 Sufficient evidence supports Claybourne's conviction. The evidence discovered inside the small bedroom singularly pointed to Claybourne as the person who exercised dominion over the bedroom where the firearm was discovered. Before the police officers even entered the residence, Officer Torruella noticed movement in the bedroom where the firearm was located. As Claybourne was the only person inside the residence, he must have been the person inside the bedroom when the police approached the residence. Claybourne's Iowa nondriver identification card and Social Security card were found in the bedroom, as was a telephone bill in Claybourne's name. Police also found another identification card for Claybourne on the very shelf where they discovered the firearm. Even Cratty's testimony revealed Claybourne exercised dominion over his small bedroom where the firearm was discovered. Cratty testified she stayed in Claybourne's room on May 26 and 27, revealing Claybourne had the authority to determine who stayed in his bedroom. 18 It is also critical that the firearm was concealed inside a man's shirt. Concealing the firearm inside a piece of clothing was consistent with how the $950 in cash was concealed inside a sock in the same bedroom. In addition to recognizing a pattern of concealing items, the jury also may have reasonably inferred the movement Officer Torruella saw in the bedroom was Claybourne attempting to conceal the firearm and cash. 19 Although criminal defendants often argue the jury should not have believed the government's witnesses, see, e.g., Cook, 356 F.3d at 917; United States v. Espino, 317 F.3d 788, 794 (8th Cir.2003), Claybourne contends the jury erroneously failed to believe his witnesses. Claybourne argues his evidence showed, step by step, how the gun ended up in the cupboard without [his] knowledge. Claybourne made this argument to the jury, which rejected it. We reiterate the jury is always the ultimate arbiter of a witness's credibility, and this Court will not disturb the jury's findings in this regard. Espino, 317 F.3d at 794. There can be no doubt the jury rejected Cratty's and Ball's convenient testimony about how the firearm found its way into Claybourne's closet. We are in no better position to judge Cratty's and Ball's credibility on their crucial testimony. The jury had sufficient circumstantial evidence upon which to convict Claybourne.