Opinion ID: 396224
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Hardy

Text: 13 Hardy does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence that he received the stolen copper wire from Turberville and Pierce; rather he asserts that it was not established that he received the stolen property knowing it to have been ... stolen ... 18 U.S.C. § 641 (1976). Viewed in the light most favorable to the government, the evidence showed that several times Hardy purchased stolen copper wire from Turberville and Pierce, paid them in cash, and gave no receipts, although it was his usual practice to do so. Some of Hardy's dealings with Turberville and Pierce occurred at night. Further, Turberville told Hardy that the copper wire came from off the Arsenal and Hardy told Turberville he would get rid of it. Finally, Hardy, in his initial interview with the FBI, denied knowing Turberville; there was evidence, however, that Hardy had in fact been dealing with Turberville for two or three years prior to the sales in question here. 14 Hardy first asserts that this evidence is insufficient to convict him because there are plausible, innocent explanations for each incriminating fact in evidence against him. Even assuming this to be true, it is of no moment, for the jury is entitled to draw any reasonable inference from a fact presented into evidence; on these facts the jury could reasonably have inferred that Hardy knew the copper wire to be stolen when he purchased it. Moreover, breaking the evidence down into discrete facts, each with its own innocent explanation, distorts the jury's actual view of the case. For even if the jury had found that each piece of evidence, standing alone, was consistent with innocence, the jury nevertheless could reasonably have concluded that the evidence, taken as a whole, excluded every reasonable hypothesis but that of guilt. United States v. Rodriguez, 654 F.2d at 317. Finally, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and under this standard Hardy's innocent explanation argument obviously must fail. 15 Hardy also contends that the evidence against him is insufficient since it is largely based on the testimony of Turberville and Pierce, 8 two admitted thieves, both of whom had long criminal records and histories of drug abuse, and admitted that their memories of their sales of goods to Hardy were impaired by their drug use. This contention is without merit since the jury was entitled to judge Turberville's and Pierce's credibility just as it judged the credibility of any other witness. We also note that Turberville and Pierce gave substantially similar testimony of their dealings with Hardy, adding credibility to their respective accounts. 9 Finally, as noted earlier, in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence we must accept all credibility choices made that tend to support the jury's verdict. Id. 16 Hardy also seems to suggest that because his conviction is based primarily on circumstantial evidence we should scrutinize the sufficiency of the evidence more closely. However, (t)he test for evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence is the same whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial. United States v. Womack, 654 F.2d 1034, 1042 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Dwoskin, 644 F.2d 418, 420 (5th Cir. 1981). Thus, we must conclude that there was sufficient evidence upon which the jury could convict Hardy of knowingly receiving stolen government property.