Opinion ID: 171200
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sufficiency of the Evidence (Jaime Zapata)

Text: Whether the government presented sufficient evidence to support a conviction is a legal question that we review de novo. United States v. Hernandez, 509 F.3d 1290, 1295 (10th Cir.2007). In considering a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, we view the record in the light most favorable to the government to determine whether a reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. We do not weigh conflicting evidence or make credibility determinations, as these are exclusively functions of the jury. See United States v. Bowen, 527 F.3d 1065, 1076 (10th Cir.2008). Jaime claims that his conviction should be overturned because it resulted from the jury piling inference upon inference. See United States v. Jones, 44 F.3d 860, 865 (10th Cir.1995). Jaime also notes that a conviction must be based on more than a mere suspicion of guilt. United States v. Dunmire, 403 F.3d 722, 724 (10th Cir.2005). His conviction, however, was based neither on suspicion nor on the piling of inferences. Jaime's conviction was based on direct testimony from his co-conspirators, and the evidence was more than sufficient for a reasonable jury to convict him on the conspiracy and possession counts. Carlos testified that Jaime was an owner or investor in the distribution scheme. Carlos explained that when he traveled to Mexico to buy cocaine from Primo, Jaime usually gave Carlos money for one-to-two kilograms of cocaine for himself. When the cocaine reached Denver, Jaime would pick up his share of the shipment and sell the cocaine to his customers. Fabian also testified as to Jaime's involvement in the conspiracy. He similarly described Jaime as an owner in the enterprise. During Fabian's testimony, the jury also heard recorded phone conversations between the two men during which Jaime asked Fabian whether he picked up the stuff from Lilian and discussed payment arrangements for family members who were driving the cocaine from El Paso to Denver. The jury heard further evidence regarding frequent drug transactions among the defendants and their coconspirators, as well as testimony regarding the defendants' attendance at and sometimes participation in drug-related discussions, which shows that Jaime knew of the general nature and scope of the illegal enterprise and shared its distribution objective. See United States v. Evans, 970 F.2d 663, 673 (10th Cir.1992). Thus, contrary to Jaime's argument that the jury convicted him by impermissibly piling inference on inference, the testimony from Carlos and Fabian is sufficient to support his conviction.