Opinion ID: 2553189
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: In determining whether there was sufficient evidence to support Matthews's conviction for the attempted robbery while armed of Swann, we `must review the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, giving full play to the right of the jury to determine the credibility, weigh the evidence, and draw justifiable inferences of fact, and drawing no distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence.' Timberlake v. United States, 758 A.2d 978, 980 (D.C.2000) (quoting Curry v. United States, 520 A.2d 255, 263 (D.C.1987)). To prevail on an insufficiency claim, an appellant must establish `that the government presented no evidence upon which a reasonable mind could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.' Carter v. United States, 957 A.2d 9, 14 (2008) (quoting Peery v. United States, 849 A.2d 999, 1001 (D.C.2004)). In this instance, we find sufficient evidence for the jury to convict Matthews of the attempted robbery while armed of Swann. Appellant contends that in this case there was no evidence, direct or circumstantial of intent to rob Swann. [8] We disagree. `[I]t is well established that the jury may infer the intent to rob from the totality of the evidence.' Id. at 15 (quoting Singleton v. United States, 488 A.2d 1365, 1367 (D.C.1985)). We consider both the appellant's words and actions to assess intent. See Owens v. United States, 497 A.2d 1086, 1090 (D.C.1985). It is not necessary for the defendant to announce his intent, id., nor is it necessary for the defendant to use any magical language demanding money, see Abdus-Price v. United States, 873 A.2d 326, 333 n. 8 (D.C. 2005). In this case, Ingram testified that people were paying for his tattooing services in cash and that he was then putting the money in his pockets while the partygoers were around him. He estimated that he collected $1000 for his work that evening. A witness testified at one point that appellant complained that he thought Ingram's prices were too high. Swann arrived with Ingram and, when the two left, helped carry Ingram's equipment. Ingram also testified that Swann would sometimes assist him at tattoo parties by showing designs to potential customers and knew where to look for certain things. Finally, Bartley testified that, when appellant heard that the tattoo guy had been shot and killed, Matthews stated that he didn't know that they were going to kill him, the plan was for them to rob the guy. Considering that Ingram had been handling money openly at the party, that Swann and Ingram arrived and left together, that Swann assisted Ingram during the night, and appellant's statement that the plan was for them to rob the guy, a reasonable juror could conclude that Matthews intended to rob Swann because it was reasonable to infer that Swann was an assistant or employee of Ingram and might have some of the tattoo earnings on his person. Thus, the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find Matthews guilty of the attempted robbery while armed of Swann.