Opinion ID: 2010891
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sufficiency of the Evidence: Count One (Conspiracy)

Text: In reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, this court must determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, and giving full play to the right of the jury to determine credibility, weigh the evidence, and draw justifiable inferences of fact. McCoy v. United States, 890 A.2d 204, 213 (D.C.2006) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). We have said that to prove a conspiracy, the government must establish the following elements: that an agreement existed between two or more people to commit a criminal offense; that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily participated in the agreement, intending to commit a criminal objective; and that, in furtherance of and during the conspiracy, a co-conspirator committed at least one overt act. Id. at 213-14 (citing McCullough v. United States, 827 A.2d 48, 58 (D.C.2003)). [14] On this record, the government's evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to have found Wheeler guilty of conspiracy to commit murder beyond a reasonable doubt. First, Wheeler had a clear motive to commit the murder: Two individuals had robbed the mother of his child of $17,000 that he had given her for the child's care. Second, Wheeler was extremely angry after the robbery, telling various individuals that he was going to get revenge. He said, for example, that somebody was going to pay; that he was going to do what [he had] to do and was willing to go to jail behind this one; that he was not going to let that shit slide about his girlfriend['s] house getting robbed; and that he was going to yeah, [15] meaning smash, the perpetrator when he found out who was responsible for the robbery. Third, Wheeler then drove around the neighborhood with another individual, [16] seeking information about the identity of the man who had stolen his money. He eventually learned the identity of the robber from a number of individuals, including Brittainy Johnsonthe victim of the robberywho told Wheeler that Taylor had been one of the robbers. Fourth, Wheeler then spoke about getting Slim (a slang term for an acquaintance, according to McCray) to smash (a slang term that, according to McCray, could mean kill, beat up, or cause some type of harm to) the robber. See note 15, supra. Wheeler even told one of Taylor's friends on the day of Taylor's murder that shit ain't looking good for your man. Fifth, and also on the day of the murder, Wheeler was seen with the same man who had been with him on the day of the robbery. [17] Sixth, only thirty-one hours after Wheeler's $17,000 were stolen, Taylor was shot ten times with a nine millimeter Luger firearm by an unidentified black male. [18] Seventh, after the murder Wheeler no longer was angry; rather, [h]e was more chilled, laid back, ... [and] social with the crowd. Finally, Wheeler made two incriminating statements after the murder. When Babb asked Wheeler if he had had Taylor killed, Wheeler responded sarcastically, I don't know what happened to your man. Just like don't nobody know what happened to my house getting robbed. While incarcerated with Riley, who advised that Wheeler could beat the case as long as the shooter did not cooperate with law enforcement, Wheeler replied, I got my man. He's going to hold fast. Wheeler argues, nonetheless, that his uncorroborated out-of-court statements made after commission of the crimethat is, after he allegedly had entered into the agreement with his co-conspirator to kill Taylor with a firearm cannot support his conviction. He contends that we should apply the holding in Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84, 90, 75 S.Ct. 158, 99 L.Ed. 101 (1954), recognized in Smith v. United States, 348 U.S. 147, 152, 75 S.Ct. 194, 99 L.Ed. 192 (1954), that statements made by an accused after the commission of a crime (but not those made before) regarding essential facts or elements of the crime require corroboration. Here, however, even accepting Wheeler's argument that the crime occurred at the moment he allegedly entered into the agreement to kill Taylor, and not later when the unidentified shooter actually shot Taylor, there is sufficient corroborative evidence to support Wheeler's conviction. Wheeler's clear motive, extreme anger following the robbery, and actions to discover the identity of the robber, along with the close proximity in time between the robbery and the murder, as well as Wheeler's calm and relieved demeanor following the murder, provide sufficient corroboration for any statements that took place after he entered into the agreement with the unidentified shooter. Based on the evidence presented, therefore, even though largely circumstantial, [19] we are satisfied that a rational trier of fact could have found Wheeler guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder.