Opinion ID: 702967
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: 43 Johnson claims that the Government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that cocaine base was involved in his offenses. We disagree. 44 We must determine whether, 'viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.' United States v. Shortt Accountancy Corp., 785 F.2d 1448, 1453 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1007 (1986) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)) (emphasis in original). Where a defendant fails to move for a judgment of acquittal at trial, this court reviews the sufficiency of the evidence only for plain error to avoid a miscarriage of justice. United States v. Chu, 5 F.3d 1244, 1248 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 1549 (1994). Because Johnson did not move for judgment of acquittal at trial, the plain error standard of review applies. 45 Under this standard of review, the evidence was more than sufficient to support Johnson's convictions for trafficking in cocaine base. A government informant testified that his transactions with Johnson were for rock cocaine. An undercover agent testified that Johnson sold him rock cocaine. The DEA chemist who tested the drugs Johnson sold identified the substance as cocaine base. 4 Finally, Johnson admitted at trial that he sold rock cocaine to the informant and the undercover agent. We conclude that this evidence was sufficient for a fact-finder to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Johnson trafficked in cocaine base and not some other form of cocaine.