Opinion ID: 59727
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: “We review the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government.” United States v. Garcia, 405 F.3d 1260, 1269 (11th Cir. 2005). A defendant’s conviction must be affirmed unless a jury could not, under a reasonable construction of the evidence, have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. “All reasonable inferences and credibility choices must be made in favor of the government and the jury’s verdict.” Id. “When a defendant does not move the district court for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the evidence, we may reverse the conviction only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Bender, 290 F.3d 1279, 1284 (11th Cir. 2002). “This standard requires the appellate court to find that the evidence on a key element of the offense is so tenuous that a conviction would be shocking.” Id. 4 “To sustain a conviction for conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) an illegal agreement existed; (2) the defendant knew of it; and (3) the defendant, with knowledge, voluntarily joined it.” United States v. Hernandez, 433 F.3d 1328, 1333 (11th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1047, 126 S.Ct. 1635 (2006). The agreement forming the basis of the conspiracy can be proved “by circumstantial evidence, through ‘inferences from the conduct of the alleged participants or from circumstantial evidence of a scheme.’” United States v. Obregon, 893 F.2d 1307, 1311 (11th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted). A jury may infer a defendant’s participation in a conspiracy from the circumstance. Hernandez, 433 F.3d at 1333. However, mere presence is insufficient to support a conviction for conspiracy, but the jury is permitted to consider presence as a probative factor in determining whether the defendant knowingly and intentionally participated in a criminal scheme. Id. “To sustain a conviction for possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, the government must show that a defendant knowingly possessed the controlled substance with the intent to distribute it,” and possession may be proved through either actual or constructive possession. Id. “Constructive possession exists when a defendant has ownership, dominion, or control over an object itself 5 or dominion or control over the premises or the vehicle in which the object is concealed. Intent to distribute may be inferred from the amount of [the drug] involved.” Id. (internal citation omitted) (alteration in original). Based on this record, we find sufficient evidence to support Olivier’s convictions. Although Olivier denied any involvement, the jury was entitled to disbelieve him and sufficient evidence supported the conclusion that he was a knowing and voluntary participant in supplying an undercover informant a total of 111.1 grams of crack cocaine.