Opinion ID: 4561253
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: The evidence at trial was sufficient to show that Walker took a substantial step toward possessing the packages involved in the attempted controlled delivery. “We review sufficiency of the evidence ‘in the light most favorable to the prosecution’ to determine whether ‘any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’”6 The Court must “uphold the jury’s verdict unless it ‘fall[s] below the threshold of bare rationality.’” 7 And “[r]eversing the jury’s conclusion simply because another inference is possible—or even equally plausible—is inconsistent with the proper inquiry for review of sufficiency of the evidence challenges.”8 A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime when the defendant “(1) acted with the requisite intent to violate the statute, and (2) performed an act that, under the circumstances as he believes them to be, constitutes a substantial step in the commission of the crime.”9 Walker does not contest the intent element; rather, he claims only that the Government failed to prove that he took a substantial step toward possessing the marijuana involved in the attempted controlled delivery. As relevant here, the “substantial step” element requires something more than “mere preparation” but falls short of completion of the offense.10 6 United States v. Garner, 915 F.3d 167, 169 (3d Cir. 2019) (quoting United States v. Caraballo-Rodriguez, 726 F.3d 418, 424–25 (3d Cir. 2013) (en banc)). 7 Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Caraballo-Rodriguez, 726 F.3d at 431). 8 Caraballo-Rodriguez, 726 F.3d at 432. 9 United States v. Tykarsky, 446 F.3d 458, 469 (3d Cir. 2006). 10 United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56, 134 (2d Cir. 2003). 5 Walker argues that he did not take a “substantial step” toward possession of the February 10 packages because he took no action to meet with the mail carrier to collect the packages. The record belies his claim. For days leading up to the attempted controlled delivery, Walker called and texted the mail carrier seeking delivery of packages containing marijuana. He provided the mail carrier with specific details regarding the packages and instructions as to their delivery. On the day of the attempted controlled delivery, Walker and the mail carrier engaged in numerous phone calls, Walker suggested two different locations for their meeting, and he informed the mail carrier that he was in a store waiting on him. That Walker failed to appear at the last agreed upon location and take possession of the drugs because of his suspicions does not undermine all of the other actions that he took in an attempt to possess the packages.11 Accordingly, we find that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that Walker attempted to possess marijuana on February 10, 2017.12 11 See United States v. Pennyman, 889 F.2d 104, 107 (6th Cir. 1989) (“We conclude that a defendant may be found to have taken a ‘substantial step’ for the purpose of an attempt conviction though he or she has failed to gain possession of drugs or ‘sham’ drugs.”). 12 See United States v. Nestor, 574 F.3d 159, 161–62 (3d Cir. 2009) (finding that the defendant’s posting of an advertisement on Craigslist seeking sexual contact with children, his repeated interactions with an undercover officer posing as a parent, and e- mail and telephone communications discussing sexual contact with children were sufficient, individually and combined, to show that the defendant took “a substantial step towards persuading, inducing, enticing, or coercing a child to engage in sexual activity”). 6