Opinion ID: 452734
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: 5 On review, this court will sustain a conviction if supported by substantial and competent evidence. United States v. Tilton, 714 F.2d 643, 645 (6th Cir. 1983). The court, however, must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government drawing reasonable inferences from the evidence in the government's favor. Id. The jury has the exclusive province to make credibility determinations and resolve evidentiary conflicts. United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 414-15 (1980); United States v. Chagra, 669 F.2d 241, 257 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 846 (1982). Once the jury has made its decision, we must find that the evidence 'justify a rational juror's conclusion that every element of the offense has been established beyond a reasonable doubt.' United States v. Tilton, 714 F.2d at 645-46. 6 The testimony of James Poore and Bill Norris is irreconcilable. Had the jury believed defendant's brother, defendant would have been acquitted. The jury, however, resolved the evidentiary conflict against defendant, and therefore convicted him on both counts. On review, we must accept the trier of fact's resolution of the evidentiary conflict, and therefore will affirm if Poore's testimony along with that of the government's other witnesses provides substantial and competent evidence. 7 Norris claims that the Poore testimony, even accepted as true, is insufficient to prove the conviction under count two--receiving explosives. While the government adduced no eyewitness testimony that Norris took physical possession of the explosives, Poore's testimony provides circumstantial evidence that defendant, and not his brother or some other person, received the dynamite for which Jackie Norris paid cash. Poore testified that Jackie Norris came into his office alone, was accompanied to the magazine by an employee, returned with the employee to Poore's office, who had the serial number of a case of dynamite, signed the papers, and left alone. This is strong circumstantial evidence that Norris received the explosives. 'Circumstantial evidence is entitled to the same weight as direct evidence in this calculus [of determining sufficiency].' Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 140 (1948). It is, in any event, sufficient to overcome defendant's acquittal motion. 8 We reject defendant's first claim of error.