Opinion ID: 12447
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a jury verdict, we determine whether, viewing the evidence and the inferences that may be drawn from it in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational jury could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Sneed, 63 F.3d 381, 385 (5th Cir. 1995) (citing United States v. Pruneda-Gonzalez, 953 F.2d 190, 193 (5th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Polley v. United States, 504 U.S. 978, 112 S. Ct. 2952 (1992)), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 712 (1996).
Both Morgan and Wright challenge their conspiracy convictions on the grounds of insufficient evidence. To establish a drug conspiracy in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, the government must 4 prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) an agreement existed to violate narcotics laws, (2) the defendant knew of the agreement, and (3) the defendant voluntarily participated in it. United States v. Misher, 99 F.3d 664, 667 (5th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted), petition for cert. filed, No. 96-1983 (Mar. 17, 1997)(citations omitted). The jury may infer any element of the conspiracy from circumstantial evidence. United States v. Inocencio, 40 F.3d 716, 725 (5th Cir. 1994)(citations omitted); Misher, 99 F.3d at 668 (citations omitted). Moreover, a conspiracy conviction can rest solely on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice if the testimony is not on its face insubstantial. United States v. Gibson, 55 F.3d 173, 181 (5th Cir. 1995) (citing United States v. Gardea Carrasco, 830 F.2d 41, 44 (5th Cir. 1987)). Melvin Ammons, John Stuart, and Johnny Robinson testified that they had an agreement to distribute crack cocaine in the Frazier Courts area. The record shows that Ammons, Stuart, and Robinson occupied one of the top rungs of the drug-dealing ladder in this area. Ammons bought cocaine in Dallas and Los Angeles for distribution in the Frazier Courts area. Stuart and Robinson sold crack from Ammons’s duplex on Frank Street. Andre Rogers was another key player who appears to have occupied an intermediate rung. Rogers employed appellant Jackson, bought crack from Ammons, Stuart, and Robinson, and sold crack to Jackson, Morgan, and Wright. The record also supports an inference that Frazier Courts was a protected territory for the distribution of crack cocaine; that 5 is, dealers in the area would not allow just anyone to sell crack cocaine in the area. Dealers were equally choosy about their clientele. Both Stuart and Rogers testified that they would not sell crack cocaine to someone they did not know. Agent Brown’s and Officer Webster’s testimony also bears this out: to make undercover purchases of crack cocaine, they had to have area residents involved in the drug scene introduce them to dealers.
The record in this case is sufficent to allow a reasonable jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Wright knew of and voluntarily participated in an agreement to distribute crack cocaine in the Frazier Courts area. Wright made crack cocaine purchases from several of the key members of the Frazier Courts conspiracy. During 1995, Stuart sold and “fronted” crack (i.e., allowed Wright to pay for crack with the proceeds of its sale to others) to Wright. Robinson also fronted crack to Wright. Wright twice attempted to purchase crack from Ammons “on consignment.” Ammons testified that he refused because it was “common knowledge” that Wright was “working for” Stuart.2 Wright also purchased crack from Andre Rogers. 2 Wright apparently argues that a colloquy between the district court and Stuart at the sentencing hearing shows that the district court found Stuart to be a credible witness and that because Stuart testified that Wright did not work for him in 1995, Ammons’s testimony to the contrary should have been discredited by the jury. Credibility issues are for the finder of fact and do not undermine the sufficiency of the evidence. See United States v. Davis, 61 F.3d 291, 297 (5th Cir. 1995), cert. denied sub nom. Jefferson v. United States, 116 S. Ct. 961 (1996)(citing United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 414-15, 100 S. Ct. 624, 637 (1980)). 6 Wright did not purchase crack cocaine only for his personal use. Wright concedes that the government proved that he sold crack to Officer Webster on April 19, 1995, April 26, 1995, May 23, 1995, and July 18, 1995. The government also presented evidence that Wright distributed crack in the neighborhood.3 According to Rogers, Wright once asked Rogers to let him “have a customer.” Wright also referred Officer Webster to 2939 School Place, an apartment out of which he and his relatives Darren Choice and Shawntee Cherry sold drugs. When Officer Webster made a purchase of crack from Shawntee Cherry, Wright paged him. Officer Webster testified that Wright first asked him why he had purchased from Cherry, but then said “oh, well, it doesn’t really matter, he works for me, it’s all the same.” All these pieces of evidence, especially in light of other testimony that Frazier Courts was a protected area where only insiders could sell crack, are sufficient to support Wright’s conspiracy conviction.
The evidence of Morgan’s participation in the crackdistribution conspiracy is sufficient as well. The record demonstrates that Morgan bought crack from Ammons, Stuart, and Robinson during 1995, made two crack sales to undercover officers 3 Wright also argues that his affiliation with a gang could not be used to prove the conspiracy. This argument is frivolous. The government did not introduce evidence at trial of Wright’s affiliation with the 415 Bloods, much less did it rely on that affiliation to prove conspiracy. 7 during the same period, and was aware of at least a tacit agreement between Ammons, Stuart, and Robinson.4 In March 1995, Morgan referred Officer Webster to Andre Rogers for the purchase of crack cocaine. Ammons testified that in May 1995, Morgan approached him to buy crack cocaine. He told Ammons that he was buying the crack because Rogers was no longer at his house at 2821/2823 Carter, but his customers were “still coming down there” so Morgan “wanted to make some money.” It requires only a small and permissible inferential step to conclude that Morgan was taking over Rogers’s role in distributing cocaine in that part of Frazier Courts. On June 15, 1995, Morgan flagged Officer Webster down. Morgan told Officer Webster he was “back in power.” Officer Webster then purchased crack cocaine from Morgan. During the purchase, Officer Webster saw numerous small baggies of crack in Morgan’s car, further supporting the inference that Morgan was distributing crack in the area. The record also contains strong evidence that Morgan knew of the agreement between Stuart, Ammons, and Robinson. Stuart twice sold crack cocaine to Morgan at Ammons’s Frank Street duplex. On the first occasion, Morgan purchased approximately 7 grams of crack cocaine for $200. The next time, he purchased an ounce. Stuart testified that he tried to charge Morgan $450. Morgan apparently 4 Morgan asserts that his first sale to Webster on January 9, 1995 was not evidence of his knowing participation in any conspiracy because Ammons, Stuart, and Robinson had not yet entered into an agreement at that time. Even without this sale, the evidence is sufficient to support Morgan’s conviction. 8 had bought an ounce from Ammons for $400; Morgan protested to Stuart that “Sinky [Ammons] let me have them for 4. Stuart testified that he reduced the price to $400 “out of respect for the duplex [on Frank Street] and the business relationship we all had.” On another occasion in 1995, Morgan came to Ammons’s residence to purchase crack cocaine. When Morgan arrived, Ammons and Robinson were cooking powder cocaine into crack cocaine. Ammons instructed Robinson to tell Morgan that it would be awhile before the crack was finished. When the crack was ready, Robinson delivered it to Morgan on Carter Street. Morgan bought approximately 60 grams of crack in this transaction alone. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, there is substantial evidence from which the jury could conclude that there was an agreement to sell crack cocaine in the Frazier Courts area and that Morgan was aware of and voluntarily participated in that agreement.
Wright challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1) for maintaining a place for the distribution of a controlled substance or aiding and abetting the same. A conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 856(a) (the “crackhouse statute”) requires the government to show that the defendant (1) knowingly (2) opened or maintained a property (3) for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using the drug. Gibson, 55 F.3d at 181. Only the second element is at issue in this case. 9 Although this circuit has previously encountered the “maintenance” element of Section 856(a)(1), the evidence presented in those cases allowed us to paint with a broader brush than the evidence in this case will permit. See United States v. Roberts, 913 F.2d 211 (5th Cir. 1990), cert. denied sub nom. Preston v. United States, 500 U.S. 955, 111 S. Ct. 2264 (1991); United States v. Onick, 889 F.2d 1425 (5th Cir. 1989), en banc reh’g denied, 894 F.2d 1335 (1990).5 During an undercover transaction on April 26, 1995, Wright told Officer Webster that he could also contact Darren Choice and Shawntee Cherry, Wright’s relatives, at 2939 School Place to purchase narcotics. Wright called the School Place apartment “our spot” and gave Webster the address as “the place from which he sold his dope.” That night Webster went to the address and bought crack from Cherry in the parking lot. Webster testified that Wright later told him that Shawntee Cherry “worked for him.” Donald Greer, Wright’s uncle and a co-defendant who pleaded guilty before trial, testified that Wright was known to sell drugs from “Shawn’s house” on School Place “in the projects.” Two and a half months later, Webster returned to the apartment. When Webster entered, Wright was lying on the couch. Wright motioned Webster in and instructed an unidentified man “to go to the closet and remove a plastic bag . . . and deliver it to Mr. Wright.” Wright then sold the crack to Webster. When the police searched 2939 School Place, they found a baggy containing 5 On several other occasions, we have considered the “for the purpose of” element, see Gibson, 55 F.3d at 181; United States v. Chen, 913 F.2d 183, 187-90 (5th Cir. 1990). 10 crack, along with a plate and a razor blade, more baggies, and white powdery residue, although these items were not directly linked to Wright. The record does not contain evidence Wright paid rent for the apartment or that he lived in the apartment. The apartment lease was in the name of Charisee Choice, another of Wright’s relatives. Wright argues that even if crack was distributed from the School Place apartment, there is no evidence that he “maintained” the apartment within the meaning of the statute. Although neither Roberts nor Onick squarely controls our disposition here, we draw guidance from them. Onick offers several hints as to the meaning of maintenance. In Onick, the evidence showed that the defendant lived in the house he was found to have maintained. Papers found at the house showed that the defendant listed it as his home address; clothes found there were labeled with his nickname, and bottles of prescription medicines bore his name; and he “selected clothing from one of the closets to wear to the police station.” 889 F.2d 1430. Based on this evidence, the court concluded that the defendant had “dominion and control” over the house, and thus had constructive possession of drugs in the house. Id. Against this factual backdrop, we held that “the jury could infer that Tolliver maintained the house because he lived there.” Id. at 1431.6 6 We reversed the conviction of another defendant in Onick who did not live at the house. Id. at 1431. We noted, however, that we did not “mean to suggest that living on the premises is either necessary or sufficient for conviction under this statute.” 889 F.2d at 1431 n.2. 11 In Roberts, this court gave a clear signal that the constructive possession concepts of “dominion and control” are relevant to the maintenance inquiry. Roberts, 913 F.2d at 221. The evidence in Roberts was strong: the defendant “paid most of the rent” on the condominium; he attempted to “swap” the condominium for another place; he was present when the police searched the place and was heard “issuing orders to the condominium’s occupants”; and a government informant had previously seen him “cutting cocaine” inside the residence. Id. From this evidence, the court concluded that the defendant “did exercise sufficient dominion and control” to support a finding that he “opened or maintained” the condominium. Id. Both Onick and Roberts suggest that dominion and control over a place are relevant to showing maintenance. See id.; Onick, 889 F.2d at 1431. Other circuits have gone further and held that evidence of dominion and control over or constructive possession of a place is sufficient to support a maintenance finding. See United States v. Basinger, 60 F.3d 1400, 1405 (9th Cir. 1995); United States v. Howell, 31 F.3d 740, 741 (8th Cir. 1994). We are wary of equating possession with maintenance by holding that any time the evidence would support a finding that the defendant was in constructive possession of a premises, the evidence would also support a conviction under the crackhouse statute when controlled substances are distributed from such premises. Indeed our opinion in Roberts suggests that not just any showing of dominion and control will suffice to support a 12 maintenance finding. We held that there was evidence that the defendant exercised “sufficient dominion and control” over the condominium, suggesting that dominion and control may fall short of maintenance. Roberts, 913 F.2d at 221 (emphasis added). We believe that the Roberts court properly qualified its holding. Congress could have, but did not, make it an offense to “possess” a place for the purpose of distributing controlled substances. “Maintain” connotes a degree of continuity and duration that is not an attribute of “possession.”7 See United States v. Clavis, 956 F.2d 1079, 1091 (11th Cir.)(listing duration and continuity as two factors to be taken into consideration in determining the maintenance issue), cert. denied sub nom. Edwards v. United States, 504 U.S. 990, 112 S. Ct. 2979 (1992), modified on other grounds, 977 F.2d 538 (11th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 998, 113 S. Ct. 1619 (1993). With this background in mind, we turn to whether there was sufficient evidence that Wright maintained the apartment on School Place. On one hand, the record is devoid of evidence that Wright lived at the apartment, leased the apartment, paid rent for the apartment, had such control over the apartment that he could lend it to others, or that the utilities or telephone service were in his name. 7 Compare Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 718 (1984) (defining to “maintain” as “to keep in an existing state: preserve from failure or decline; to sustain against opposition or danger: uphold and defend; to continue or persevere in: carry on, keep up) with id. at 918 (defining “possess” as “to instate as an owner . . . to have and hold as property). 13 On the other hand, the evidence demonstrates that Wright exercised some supervisory control over the apartment, shown by his instructions to the person who retrieved the crack from the closet and brought it to him and by the fact that Cherry, who lived in the apartment, worked for him. Supervisory control over the premises is one factor that this court has considered probative of “maintaining” a place. See Roberts, 913 F.2d at 221 (noting that the police heard the defendant giving orders to the occupants of the condominimum). The Eleventh Circuit has also recognized that acts of maintenance may include “supervising, protecting, [or] supplying food to those at the site . . . .” Clavis, 956 F.2d at 1091. Similarly, the Seventh Circuit in dictum emphasized that the statute “appears to be aimed, like the drug-kingpin statute, at persons who occupy a supervisory, managerial, or entrepreneurial role in a drug enterprise . . . .” United States v. Thomas, 956 F.2d 165, 166 (7th Cir. 1992)(citations omitted). The question in this case is whether the slim evidence of supervisory control over the apartment, in combination with the other slender reeds upon which the government relies, is sufficient to show that Wright “maintained” the apartment. Along with evidence that Wright exercised a supervisory role at the apartment, there is some evidence of the duration of Wright’s connection with the apartment: at least two and a half months passed between when Wright referred Officer Webster to the apartment (calling it “our spot”) and when Wright was in the apartment, selling crack to Officer Webster. There is also 14 evidence that Wright stored his crack in a closet at the apartment, which is not a common area. See Clavis, 956 F.2d at 1092 (noting that items owned by defendant convicted under Section 856(a)(1) were found in a locked closet); United States v. Williams, 923 F.2d 1397, 1403-04 (10th Cir. 1990) (emphasizing the fact that items connected to the defendant were found in a closet), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 925, 111 S. Ct. 2033 (1991). This case does not involve an isolated sale of crack from a location. Rather, all the evidence is consistent with Wright having participated in the maintenance of a crackhouse. Wright directed others to the crackhouse; called the location “our spot”; told Officer Webster that Cherry, who resided in the apartment, worked for him; and exercised dominion and control over the apartment by directing another person during a drug transaction and by storing his drugs in a closet in the apartment. Although any of these facts might be insufficient in isolation, they coalesce to support the jury’s finding here that Wright maintained 2939 School Place for the purpose of distributing crack cocaine in violation of Section 856(a)(1). We emphasize that whether a defendant has “maintained” a place is necessarily a fact-intensive issue that must be resolved on a case-by-case basis. In doing so, we must be mindful of the conditions under which crackhouse operations are often conducted. Drug dealers who maintain a location for the purpose of selling drugs may not avoid conviction under the crackhouse statute by simply ensuring that the lease or deed for the location and the 15 utilities, if any, are not in their name. See, e.g., United States v. Wood, 57 F.3d 913, 919 (10th Cir. 1995); Howell, 31 F.3d at 741; see also United States v. Lancaster, 968 F.2d 1250, 1254 (D.C. Cir. 1992). Where the evidence shows that over a period of time the defendant can direct the activities of and the people in a place, the jury may infer that he is involved in maintaining the place. Accordingly, we conclude that the evidence as a whole is sufficient to support the jury’s finding that Wright maintained 2939 School Place for the purpose of distributing cocaine base. C. Aiding and abetting the sale of crack cocaine near a public school (Morgan) The jury convicted Morgan of Count 14, which charged that Morgan, Jackson, and Rogers aided and abetted each other in the possession and distribution of crack near a public school on March 10, 1995. The record shows that Morgan referred Officer Webster to Rogers at 2831/2823 Carter for the purchase of crack. Webster went to the Carter address and was met by Ryan Jackson, whom Webster knew from a previous sale. Webster and Jackson negotiated the sale, Jackson got baggies of crack from Rogers, and Jackson and Webster drove to another location to complete the sale. Morgan appears to complain of his conviction because although he referred Webster to Rogers, Jackson actually handled the transaction. This argument is without merit. Aside from the fact that Rogers was in fact involved in the transaction, evidence at trial showed that Jackson worked for Rogers. This evidence is more than sufficient to support the conviction. 16