Opinion ID: 492448
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: 17 Neil Mueller complains that the evidence adduced against him at trial was wholly circumstantial and therefore, insufficient to exclude a reasonable doubt as to his participation in the charged conspiracy. In order to establish Mueller's guilt of conspiracy to manufacture or possess marijuana with intent to deliver, the government was required to prove that Mueller knew of the conspiracy and that he intended to join and associate himself with that conspiracy. See United States v. Percival, 756 F.2d 600, 611 (7th Cir.1985); United States v. Herrera, 757 F.2d 144, 149 (7th Cir.1985); United States v. Perry, 747 F.2d 1165, 1169 (7th Cir.1984). However, when a defendant is found guilty, the factfinder's role as weigher of the evidence is preserved through the legal conclusion that upon judicial review all of the evidence is to be considered in the light most favorable to the prosecution. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (emphasis in original). United States v. Balistrieri, 778 F.2d 1226, 1232 (7th Cir.1985), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 3284, 91 L.Ed.2d 573 (1985). Hence, the reviewing court must employ a reasonable doubt test to determine whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosectuion, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S.Ct. at 2789. Given this weighted standard of review we are unable to reverse the jury's verdict. 18 The uncontroverted evidence showed that Mueller was present when the Beniach brothers initially rented the farm land from Jay Leahy. Mueller was also present at the field on the day the marijuana was harvested and transported to the farmhouse. Thereafter he spent several hours at the farmhouse which, along with the shed and field, contained over 3,000 pounds of marijuana plants. When Mueller was arrested, his truck contained a small quantity of marijuana on its rear ledge and an additional quantity in the bed of the truck. Finally, small amounts of marijuana were found on a pair of pruning shears recovered from Mueller's truck, as well as on his clothing. 19 Throughout the trial and now on appeal, Mueller has proffered innocent explanations for his presence during the harvesting operations. However, under the mandate of Jackson v. Virginia, where the factfinder is asked to draw conflicting hypotheses, the reasonable doubt test requires the reviewing court to consider the evidence according to the prosecutor's inferences. United States v. Moya, 721 F.2d 606, 610 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1037, 104 S.Ct. 1312, 79 L.Ed.2d 709 (1984). When presented with the conflicting hypotheses pursued by the government and Mueller, therefore, we are obligated to credit the prosecutor's inferences. Thus, we find that a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that Mueller committed the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.