Opinion ID: 727816
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sufficiency of the Evidence on Count Three

Text: 15 Borkowski argues the court erred in denying his Rule 29(c) motion because the testimony of an equivocating witness was legally insufficient evidence for a conviction on Count Three. 16 This court reviews de novo a ruling on a Rule 29 motion for acquittal. United States v. Riggins, 40 F.3d 1055, 1057 (9th Cir.1994). The test is whether, after 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. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). 17 Use of the mails to carry out the fraudulent scheme is a necessary element of each of the four mail fraud counts. The witness, Terry Leftrook, initially did express some uncertainty as to whether he received a fraudulent January 8, 1993, account statement, in the mail. However, at the close of Leftrook's testimony, the court questioned him to clarify whether each of four documents were received in the mail. Leftrook then testified that he received the January 8, 1993 statement in the mail. By that testimony, a rational jury had sufficient evidence to find the essential element had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.