Opinion ID: 2832762
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Challenge to the Conviction

Text: Sharp first challenges his conviction, arguing that there was insufficient evidence for the jury to find that he had possessed the firearm that was found by Officers Evans and Brewer. 2 Sharp preserved this challenge by filing a motion for judgment of acquittal, so we review the court’s denial of the motion de novo. See United States v. Frye, 489 F.3d 201, 207 (5th Cir. 2007). “Therefore, we determine whether a rational jury could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). “We review the evidence and the reasonable inferences which flow therefrom in the light most favorable to the verdict.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, a rational jury easily could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Sharp actually possessed the firearm before discarding it. As described above, when Sharp was arrested, .380 caliber ammunition was found on his person. He told the police that he had the ammunition because he had gone target shooting with his friends, effectively admitting that he had possessed a firearm, even if it was no longer in his possession. After he was booked into the jail, Officer Harrison heard him say that the Waco Police Department had failed to find a gun that he had “tossed right beside him.” When police officers returned to the scene, they found a .380 caliber gun a few feet away from where they had originally apprehended Sharp. When viewed in the light most favorable to the government, the government’s evidence was more than sufficient for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Sharp had possessed the firearm that the police later located. 3 2 Sharp does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence as to the other elements of the offense of conviction. 3 Sharp also mentions that “the jury was arguably misinformed by the trial judge” when, in response to a jury question, the court “indicated that no firearms registration is required by law in Texas.” Sharp did not object to the district court’s instruction to this effect. 5 Case: 14-51061 Document: 00513176721 Page: 6 Date Filed: 09/01/2015 No. 14-51061