Opinion ID: 1036843
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Morris was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He was also convicted of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). He argues that there was insufficient evidence on these counts. Specifically, he contends that the government failed to prove that the firearms in question were operable, or were capable of being readily restored. We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence de novo. United States v. Fisher, 648 F.3d 442, 450 (6th Cir. 2011). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the relevant inquiry is whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. The term “firearm” means any weapon “which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.” 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3)(A). “[A] firearm need not be operable to satisfy the definition of firearm for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).” - 11 - No. 12-1581 United States v. Morris United States v. Bandy, 239 F.3d 802, 805 (6th Cir. 2001). A jury can reasonably conclude that a weapon is capable of firing a projectile, or at least that it had been designed for that purpose, where the jury has the actual weapon before it and there is testimony that the weapon was loaded when it was recovered by the police. United States v. Forrest, 402 F.3d 678, 686-87 (6th Cir. 2005). Here, both Michigan State Police troopers testified that the weapons were loaded when seized from Morris. Moreover, both weapons were admitted into evidence and examined by the jury. Thus, we find Morris’s argument to be without merit.