Opinion ID: 199380
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Nguyen argues that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support a Hobbs Act conviction in two respects. First, he argues that there was insufficient evidence of any interstate commerce nexus. Second, he argues that there was insufficient evidence that he conspired to commit robbery, as opposed to the lesser offense of theft.
The Hobbs Act prohibits robbery or conspiracy to rob where such crime in any way or degree, obstructs, delays, or affects commerce. 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). Nguyen concedes, as he must, that if a robbery even minimally depletes the assets of an entity doing business in interstate commerce, like Nail Time,2 then that suffices to meet the Hobbs Act's interstate commerce element. See, e.g., United States v. DiGregorio, 605 2 The evidence showed that Nail Time ordered a substantial proportion of its products from out of state. -4- F.2d 1184, 1190-91 (1st Cir. 1979). But he makes two attempts to distinguish that principle from this case. First, he argues that, although the conspirators had hoped to steal the earnings of Nail Time stored in Monica's purse, the only articles they actually stole were a stereo and jewelry. But this distinction is of no avail in the context of a conspiracy charge. All that matters is that Nguyen entered a conspiracy whose objective was to steal the assets of an entity in interstate commerce. That the conspiracy failed to accomplish such objective is irrelevant. E.g., United States v. DiCarlantonio, 870 F.2d 1058, 1061 (6th Cir. 1989); United States v. Brantley, 777 F.2d 159, 162 (4th Cir. 1985). Second, Nguyen argues that the conspirators did not necessarily know whether the money in the black bag they planned to steal constituted Nail Time's operating cash (used by the business to purchase items in interstate commerce) or merely Monica's take-home profits. But the interstate commerce element does not turn on such accounting niceties. Cf., e.g., United States v. Devin, 918 F.2d 280, 293-94 (1st Cir. 1990) (considering it inconsequential, in Hobbs Act -5- extortion case, that extorted funds came from business owner's personal funds rather than from corporate funds, because jury could infer that depletion of former ultimately effects a depletion of latter) (citing DiGregorio, 605 F.2d at 1191-92). The evidence need only support a realistic probability that the contemplated robbery would have some slight impact on interstate commerce. Id. at 293. Such probability is easily established here, as the evidence clearly shows that the conspirators planned to steal the earnings of a business in interstate commerce. Proof beyond that, e.g., that the precise funds stolen were certain to be used in future business purchases, is not required.
As defined in the Hobbs Act, [t]he term 'robbery' means the unlawful taking or obtaining of personal property . . . in the presence of another, against his will, by means of actual or threatened force, or violence, or fear of injury. 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(1). Nguyen does not contest that his coconspirators committed robbery. Rather, he argues that it was not foreseeable to him that they would commit robbery as opposed to simple theft. But the evidence was not -6- insufficient on this point. Nguyen knowingly dispatched his co-conspirators to break into Monica's home and steal her black bag. He knew that at least one member of this unwholesome crew carried a gun. He also knew, from living with Monica, that her apartment was frequently occupied by family members and house guests. Indeed, Monica specifically testified that she rarely would leave her black bag at the apartment when it was not occupied; rather, she would only leave it at home if her mother was there to look after it. Further, there was evidence that one of Nguyen's motives in forming the conspiracy was to follow through on a grudge he held against Monica's brother, Kevin, who lived in the apartment: Nguyen stated, in reference to the planned crime, that Kevin would get what is coming to him;3 and the robbers specifically asked for Kevin on entering the apartment. On these facts, a jury could easily find that robbery was a foreseeable outcome of the conspiracy.