Opinion ID: 773857
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sufficiency of Evidence for Conspiracy Conviction

Text: 35 Evidence is sufficient to support a verdict if after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). We view the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict, giving the verdict the benefit of all reasonable inferences, and [we] will reverse only if the jury must have had a reasonable doubt concerning one of the essential elements of the crime. United States v. Sandifer, 188 F.3d 992, 995 (8th Cir. 1999). 36 In order to be convicted of conspiracy, a defendant must be shown to have knowingly entered into an agreement with at least one other person to violate the law. United States v. Holloway, 128 F.3d 1254, 1257 (8th Cir. 1997); United States v. Agofsky, 20 F.3d 866, 870 (8th Cir. 1994). A defendant challenging the sufficiency of a conspiracy conviction has a heavy burden of proof because the crime often rests on indirect or circumstantial evidence. United States v. Hulse, 198 F.3d 665, 668 (8th Cir. 1999). 37 Jones challenges the sufficiency of the conspiracy conviction because he contends that there was no showing that he acted with or under the direction of another person. Jones argues that simply because he was at the scene of illegal activity with others is not enough to show a conspiracy. 38 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, Jones's conspiracy conviction must be affirmed. The evidence adduced at trial shows that after a narcotics transaction with Officer Cornman on July 16, 1999, Jones, along with others in the car, proceeded to a separate area of the parking lot where another transaction occurred. The jury could have determined from this evidence that Jones was working in conjunction with those in the vehicle to sell narcotics. 39 Moreover, testimony at trial showed that on August 18, 1999, Jones and Lil' Mex completed another narcotics transaction with Officer Cornman. During that transaction, Lil' Mex was introduced to Officer Cornman and he participated in the transaction by handing the narcotics to Cornman through the car window. Lil' Mex also told Cornman that the proper amount of narcotics was in the package, and then after it was found to be short, said Just knock some off. Let's go. Jones also indicated to Cornman during a later conversation that he had dealt with Lil' Mex before. The jury could reasonably concluded from this evidence that Jones was involved in a conspiracy with Lil' Mex. 40 The evidence was therefore sufficient for a jury to conclude that Jones was guilty of a conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine. 41 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.