Opinion ID: 621801
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Soha's Sufficiency-of-the-Evidence Claim Regarding the Kent Extortion Count

Text: Finally, Soha argues that the evidence was insufficient to show his participation in the vandalism of Keith Kent's property on January 4, 2001, and therefore to support his conviction on the corresponding extortion count. In making this claim, Soha bears a heavy burden. In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence underlying a guilty verdict, we must review the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, drawing all reasonable inferences in its favor. United States v. Gaskin, 364 F.3d 438, 459 (2d Cir.2004). We also resolve all inferences from the evidence and issues of credibility in favor of the verdict. United States v. Howard, 214 F.3d 361, 363 (2d Cir.2000). Reversal is warranted only if no rational factfinder could have found the crimes charged proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Gaskin, 364 F.3d at 459-60. Moreover, the jury's verdict may be based on circumstantial evidence, United States v. D'Amato, 39 F.3d 1249, 1256 (2d Cir.1994). In this case, there was abundant evidence to support the jury's finding that Soha aided and abetted the Kent extortion. To convict a defendant of aiding and abetting a substantive crime, the government must prove that the underlying crime was committed by someone other than the defendant and that the defendant himself either acted or failed to act with the specific intent of advancing the commission of the underlying crime. United States v. Pipola, 83 F.3d 556, 562 (2d Cir.1996). Although Soha appears not to have committed any acts of vandalism at the Kent site himself, both Roger Cooper and Patrick Ackroyd testified that he transported them to Kent's garage on January 4, 2001, as even he acknowledges. Moreover, unlike defendant in United States v. Santos, 449 F.3d 93 (2d Cir.2006), which Soha cites in his brief, the testimony throughout the trial showed that Soha was generally aware of David Cain's criminal activities and had participated in other incidents of vandalism. The jury was entitled to rely on this evidence as well as the evidence of Soha's direct involvement in the Kent extortion in concluding that he possessed the requisite knowledge and intent as to the purpose of the visit to Kent's property.