Opinion ID: 396287
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: 5 The appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction, on the grounds that uncontradicted evidence adduced at trial demonstrated his withdrawal from the conspiracy prior to the commission of any overt acts. In reviewing this claim, the court must examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, accepting all reasonable inferences which support the jury's verdict. United States v. Marx, 635 F.2d 436, 438 (5th Cir. 1981). The test specifically applied to conspiracy convictions is whether substantial evidence exists to support the verdict. United States v. Martino, 648 F.2d 367, 393 (5th Cir.), vacated in part, sub nom., United States v. Holt, 650 F.2d 651 (1981); United States v. Malatesta, 590 F.2d 1379, 1382 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 962, 99 S.Ct. 1508, 59 L.Ed.2d 777 (1979). 6 Since Diaz admitted his membership in the conspiracy, the substantial evidence test must be applied to the appellant's defense of withdrawal. Having joined the conspiracy, Diaz could withdraw only by taking affirmative action to defeat or disavow its purpose. United States v. Martino, 648 F.2d at 404. The burden of proving withdrawal from a conspiracy rests upon the defendant. United States v. Killian, 639 F.2d 206, 209 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Bradsby, 628 F.2d 901, 905 (5th Cir. 1980). 7 At trial, Diaz testified that his co-conspirators, Andrew Fautious and Longine Gelebert, worked out the numbers and it looked like a very interesting deal. That's why I went ahead and planned it with them. Trial transcript, vol. III at 244. The use of a boat owned by Robert Jansenius for offloading the marijuana formed part of that scheme. Responding to his attorney's inquiry regarding his intention to withdraw, Diaz stated: 8 A. Well, many a phone call I had with him and I told him to stand by and be patient and when things were ready I would get back to him. But he kept calling me back and calling me back and I mean I just had to keep making up excuses for him just to leave me alone. 9 Q. So are you saying that when you told Jansenius he would have to wait or something was happening or this or that, that that in fact was not true, you were pushing him off? 10 A. That's right. 11 Q. Then did there come a time when you leveled with Jansenius? 12 A. Yes. And I told him right off. I said I'm out of this thing. 13 Trial transcript, vol. III at 246-47. 14 Making up excuses, as Diaz phrased it, does not amount to clear disavowal of the conspiracy. Further contraverting Diaz's defense of withdrawal is the revelation by Jansenius at trial that he did not become aware that the planned marijuana haul was not going to take place until he learned that some conspirators were under indictment. 15 Corroboration of Diaz's claim of withdrawal was provided by his admittedly close friend, Gelebert, who testified evasively on behalf of the appellant that Jansenius told me that they called me up and said it was not going to happen. I think he did. Trial transcript, vol. III at 227. 16 Given the above, the court finds that substantial evidence exists to support Diaz's conviction. Faced with a credibility choice regarding the conflicting testimony, the jury's determination that Diaz failed to withdraw from the conspiracy was entirely reasonable and should not be disturbed.