Opinion ID: 751653
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sufficiency of the Evidence in Second Carjacking Incident

Text: 29 Williams next argues that there is insufficient evidence to convict him of carjacking in the second incident because the government failed to prove he intended to steal O'Har's car. The carjacking statute expressly prohibits attempts. See 18 U.S.C. § 2119. We review Williams' sufficiency of the evidence claim to see if a reasonable jury could have found Williams attempted to steal O'Har's car beyond a reasonable doubt. Uder, 98 F.3d at 1045. A defendant must take a substantial step towards the completion of the crime to constitute an attempt. See United States v. Carlisle, 118 F.3d 1271, 1273 (8th Cir.1997). A substantial step is conduct such that if it had not been extraneously interrupted would have resulted in a crime. Id. We again review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, drawing all reasonable inferences from the evidence in favor of the verdict. Willis, 89 F.3d at 1376. 30 Our review of the record convinces us that there is sufficient evidence to support Williams' conviction for the second carjacking incident. The evidence supports a finding that Williams attacked O'Har while she was retrieving items from her car. Williams tried to shove O'Har into her car. He ordered O'Har not to say anything while he was trying to push her into the car. Williams was armed with a revolver during the incident. These facts all support a reasonable inference that Williams was attempting to steal O'Har's car and that he took the required substantial steps towards that goal. 31