Opinion ID: 733238
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sufficiency of the Evidence Against Hawkins

Text: 22 Hawkins contends that in order to prove a violation of the schoolyard statute the Government must show that he possessed or distributed heroin within 1,000 feet of an actual school, not just a school building that is no longer (or not yet) in use as a school. We agree. The Act applies not only to schools but also to swimming pools, playgrounds, youth centers, and video arcade facilities. While neither school nor swimming pool is defined in the Act, the other three terms are defined in a way that clearly implies that the whole statute is directed only to facilities where one would expect young people to congregate. See 21 U.S.C. § 860(e)(1) (defining playground as any outdoor facility ... intended for recreation ... containing three or more separate apparatus intended for the recreation of children including, but not limited to, sliding boards, swingsets, and teeterboards); id. at § 860(e)(2) (defining youth center to include facilities primarily for use by persons under 18 years of age); id. at § 860(e)(3) (defining video arcade facility to include any facility, legally accessible to persons under 18 years of age). The Congress is understandably concerned with drug dealing where it might attract children, not with its effect upon abandoned or unfinished school buildings. Reading the statute as a whole, therefore, we conclude that the Congress intended to subject drug dealers to enhanced [322 U.S.App.D.C. 398] punishment only for conduct occurring within 1,000 feet of an operating school (or other listed facility). 23 This court cannot, however, agree with Hawkins' assertion that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, no rational trier of fact could have found the essential element of this crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Officer Nitz testified that Hawkins' drug offenses occurred within 1,000 feet of the Garnett-Patterson Junior High School. He clarified his statement by adding a middle school. As here used and qualified, a reasonable juror could take the word school to refer to an operating school. We therefore reject Hawkins' challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence against him. 24