Opinion ID: 51355
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: The second issue on appeal is whether there was sufficient evidence to support Light’s conviction. Light argues that the evidence introduced at trial was insufficient because the Government’s case against him centered largely on the 5 testimony of McDonald, a Government informant whose testimony Light says is not credible. In order to sustain a conviction for possession with intent to distribute, the Government must show (1) knowing possession, and (2) an intent to distribute. United States v. Perez-Tosta, 36 F.3d 1552, 1559 (11th Cir. 1994). Intent to distribute may be inferred from the quantity of drugs. Id. To support a conviction based on possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, the Government does not have to show that the defendant had knowledge of the particular drug involved or the quantity of drug involved, but must prove that the defendant was aware that a controlled substance was involved. United States v. Gomez, 905 F.2d 1513, 1514 (11th Cir. 1990). Determinations regarding witness credibility are within the exclusive province of the jury and may not be revisited unless a witness’s testimony is “incredible as a matter of law.” United States v. Calderon, 127 F.3d 1314, 1325 (11th Cir.1997). Testimony is incredible as a matter of law if it is “unbelievable on its face,” or includes “facts that [the witness] physically could not have possibly observed or events that could not have occurred under the laws of nature.” Id. McDonald’s testimony was not incredible as a matter of law. His testimony related to matters that he physically observed, and the jury was aware of 6 McDonald’s criminal history and his motivation for cooperating with the Government. The jury was fully entitled to credit McDonald’s testimony if it so chose. Moreover, the testimony from the Plant City Police Detective and the Government’s other evidence, including audio and video surveillance tapes, bolstered McDonald’s testimony. McDonald testified that after speaking to Light on the telephone, he arranged to meet Light at his house. Both McDonald and the Detective testified that McDonald and his vehicle were searched prior to the encounter and that there were no drugs found. The video showed that Light arrived as scheduled, dropped something on the floor of the porch and exchanged something with McDonald, which McDonald testified was the money given to him by the Detective. Although not completely clear, the audio tape of the transaction corroborated McDonald’s testimony that he and Light discussed the quantity and quality of the crack cocaine. After the transaction, McDonald presented the drugs to the Detective and was searched again, but no money was found either on his person or in his vehicle. Thus, we determine that, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, it was not unreasonable for the jury to find that McDonald’s testimony was credible because it was not unbelievable on its face, it was corroborated by other evidence, and it helped to establish the elements of the crime charged. Accordingly, the Government introduced evidence sufficient to 7 prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Light knew he possessed a controlled substance and that he intended to distribute it.