Opinion ID: 796719
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: 30 Cannon first argues that the district court erred in denying Cannon's motion for acquittal based on the sufficiency of the evidence. Specifically, Cannon argues that no jury could reasonably find that he was a member of the conspiracy to kill Coy Smith or that his actions met the interstate commerce requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 1958. We review de novo a district court's denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal. United States v. Washington, 318 F.3d 845, 852 (8th Cir. 2003). We 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. 31 Cannon does not contest the fact that a conspiracy to commit the murder for hire of Smith existed. Cannon argues that the government did not present sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Cannon joined the murder-for-hire conspiracy. To convict Cannon of conspiracy, the government had to prove that there was an agreement to [to kill Smith], that [Cannon] knew of this agreement, and that [Cannon] intentionally joined this agreement. Id. at 853. 32 If a conspiracy has been established, as in this case, the government must offer enough evidence to prove a defendant's connection to a conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt before a conspiracy conviction can be upheld. United States v. Lopez, 443 F.3d 1026, 1028 (8th Cir.2006) (en banc). Slight evidence connecting the defendant to a conspiracy is not enough to support a conviction. See id. at 1029-30. However, [p]roof of a defendant's involvement in a conspiracy may of course be demonstrated by direct or circumstantial evidence. Id. at 1030. 33 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, it was reasonable for the jury to conclude that Cannon was a part of the conspiracy. 5 The evidence supporting the verdict includes numerous phone calls from Cannon's mother's house to Tonya Hyles's home, the exchange of the murder weapon, and Cannon's statements demonstrating knowledge of how the murder was committed. Witnesses testified to direct statements from Cannon stating that he was going to kill or had killed Coy Smith. He was seen the day before the murder carrying the murder weapon and driving the Pontiac Parisienne, which the evidence showed was the consideration for the murder for hire. 34 Cannon's actions in the early morning hours on the date of the murder also support the jury's verdict. Leatherwood observed Cannon cutting eye holes in a black scarf. Around 3:00 a.m., Cannon left Leatherwood's house and then returned twenty minutes later. Leatherwood's house was close in proximity to Carter's house. Cannon then soaked his pants in the bathtub, listened to the police scanner, and called Wiley once he heard the report about Smith's murder. Cannon told Wiley to look outside at the emergency vehicles at Smith's house. The evidence is sufficient to show that Cannon joined the conspiracy. 35 Cannon also argues the government's evidence is insufficient because it does not prove the requisite connection between interstate commerce and the murder-for-hire plot. The government had to prove that Cannon, or some other member of the conspiracy, conspired to travel[] in . . . interstate or foreign commerce, or use[] . . . the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, with intent that a murder be committed . . . as consideration for the receipt of, or as consideration for a promise or agreement to pay, anything of pecuniary value . . . . 18 U.S.C. § 1958(a). `[F]acility of interstate or foreign commerce' includes means of transportation and communication. 18 U.S.C. § 1958(b)(2). 36 There was ample evidence offered by the government at trial to prove the interstate connection. There were four calls made from Cannon's mother's house in Memphis to Tonya's house, one of which overlapped with one of Tyrese's calls from jail. These calls were made in the context of Tonya's efforts to obtain a gun from Samuel Anderson so David Carter could kill Smith in exchange for the Pontiac Parisenne. Days later, Cannon called April Leatherwood and told her that Tonya was driving him to Caruthersville from Memphis. Once Cannon arrived in Caruthersville, Anderson gave him the same gun he had since received back from Carter. Cannon asked Anderson for the gun so that Cannon could handle that for Little Tyrese. After the murder, Cannon told Myron Woods, his cellmate, that he came up from Memphis to Caruthersville to shoot some dude. 37 Cannon argues that the government did not offer any evidence showing who the parties to the phone conversations were or that the topic of those conversation was the murder of Smith. Cannon asserts that the phone records offered at trial showed no difference in either the number or pattern of calls from Cannon's mother's house in Memphis and Tonya Hyles's house in Caruthersville once he allegedly became involved in the conspiracy. Cannon also argues that there is no evidence showing that he drove from Memphis to Caruthersville with the purpose of killing Smith. 6 38 Cannon relies primarily on United States v. Sullivan, 809 F.Supp. 934 (N.D.Ga. 1992). This case can be distinguished. In Sullivan, the only evidence offered to prove the connection between use of facilities of interstate commerce and the murder-for-hire plot was four phone calls between the defendant's home and a number of unknown people. Neither the trigger man, nor any of his accomplices had been apprehended or identified at the time of the defendant's trial. In this context, the court granted defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal because the government did not prove that the telephone calls related to the murder—that is, that they were in fact used in the commission of the offense. Id. at 937 (internal marks omitted). 39 In this case, the government offered more than just four phone calls with unknown parties. The government included evidence linking Cannon to several co-conspirators and a conspiracy that Cannon does not dispute exists. [T]he jury may draw all reasonable inferences from [circumstantial] evidence. United States v. Davidson, 122 F.3d 531, 535 (8th Cir.1997); see also United States v. Basile, 109 F.3d 1304, 1310 (8th Cir.1997) (We may affirm even if the evidence is entirely circumstantial.). When taken together with the other evidence at trial, such as Carter and Anderson's testimony and the timing of Cannon's calls and visit to Caruthersville, the phone calls between Memphis and Caruthersville provide, at the very least, sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove an interstate nexus. The district court did not err in denying Cannon's motion for acquittal.