Opinion ID: 2671702
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Mr. Thomas challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on both the distribution and premises counts. Appellant’s Opening Br. at 38-40. In addressing this challenge, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and review the record de novo to determine whether “any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant 15 guilty of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Irvin, 682 F.3d 1254, 1266 (10th Cir. 2012). In making this determination, we consider all the evidence that was introduced, even if the district court had erred in allowing use of the evidence. See Davis v. Workman, 695 F.3d 1060, 1078-79 (10th Cir. 2012) (“[W]hen considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider all evidence admitted at trial, even if admitted improperly.”). On the distribution counts, Mr. Thomas’s sufficiency challenge turns on his earlier challenges to the admissibility of L.H.’s testimony and the drug evidence. See Appellant’s Opening Br. at 39-40 (incorporating arguments about admissibility of evidence in the challenge to sufficiency of the evidence on the distribution charges). Earlier, we held that L.H.’s testimony and the drug evidence were admissible. Based on this evidence, we also reject Mr. Thomas’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on the distribution charges. As we have held, “[i]t is the right of the jury to determine the credibility of each witness, and a jury may convict based on the uncorroborated testimony of a co-conspirator.” See United States v. Cox, 934 F.2d 1114, 1120-21 (10th Cir. 1991) (internal citation omitted). Although Mr. Thomas presented numerous grounds to impeach L.H., the jury could determine whether she was credible. The jury decided she was, and we will not second-guess that decision. Mr. Thomas also contends that the evidence was insufficient to convict on the premises charge because the apartments had been maintained by a codefendant. Appellant’s Opening Br. at 38-40. This contention overlooks the ability of the court to convict if Mr. Thomas had used (rather than maintained) the apartments for an illicit 16 purpose. We have already held that the jury could have found Mr. Thomas guilty of violating 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1) if he had used the apartments to distribute drugs. Because Mr. Thomas does not challenge the ability of the court to convict on a “use” theory, the evidence sufficed on the premises charge.