Opinion ID: 72120
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Both Edica and Zonia challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support their convictions on all three counts. They preserved this issue by moving for judgments of acquittal at the close of the Government’s case-in-chief and at the close of all evidence. Accordingly, review is de novo. United States v. Percel, 553 F.3d 903, 910 (5th Cir. 2008). This court will uphold the jury’s verdict if a reasonable trier of fact could conclude from the evidence that the elements of the offense were established beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 910. This court “view[s] the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and draw[s] all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the verdict.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). This court does “not weigh evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses, and the jury is free to choose among reasonable constructions of the evidence.” United States v. Ramos-Cardenas, 524 F.3d 600, 605 (5th Cir. 2008). “Nonetheless, the government must do more than show that the defendants ‘could have been guilty.’” Id. (citation omitted). Reversal is required “if the evidence tends to give equal or nearly equal circumstantial support to guilt and to innocence.” Id.
Edica first argues that the evidence was insufficient to support her conspiracy conviction because it failed to show that she agreed with Zonia to possess and transport a controlled substance or that she “participated” in the conspiracy. She contends that her mere presence in Zonia’s truck while Pancho hooked the trailer to it was insufficient to prove either an agreement or her 6 No. 08-41362 participation. She asserts that, to the extent she stated that she was going to be paid $2,000 to $3,000, the question remains, “what for?” To support a conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, the Government must prove an agreement between two or more people to violate narcotics laws, the defendant’s knowledge of the agreement, and the defendant’s voluntary participation in the conspiracy. United States v. Patino-Prado, 533 F.3d 304, 309 (5th Cir. 2008). Although Edica asserts that the Government did not prove all three of these elements, she makes no argument about the second element; she challenges only the sufficiency of the evidence to show an agreement and her voluntary participation. See United States v. Stalnaker, 571 F.3d 428, 433 (5th Cir. 2009) (“Where a defendant asserts that the evidence was insufficient to convict him but fails to make any argument whatsoever to support this contention, the issue is considered abandoned.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The agreement element was proved by Edica’s admission to the ICE agents that she and another person agreed to pick up a trailer in Nuevo Laredo that was going to be loaded with drugs. The evidence showed that Edica participated in the conspiracy by traveling to Nuevo Laredo and accompanying Zonia when the trailer loaded with drugs was hooked to Zonia’s vehicle. To the extent this shows that Edica was merely present, there was other circumstantial evidence that supports an inference of her participation. See Percel, 553 F.3d at 910 (“Though mere presence at a crime scene is insufficient to support an inference of participation in a conspiracy, the jury may consider presence and association, along with other evidence, in finding conspiratorial activity by the defendant.”). Edica admitted that she was going to paid a portion of her coconspirator’s payment for picking up the trailer. It is implausible that Edica would be paid between $2,000 and $3,000 if she was not participating in the conspiracy. Additionally, Edica told the agents that she had left her car at the H.E.B. 7 No. 08-41362 parking lot in Laredo, where she and her coconspirator were to leave the trailer. A reasonable jury could conclude from this evidence that both the agreement and participation elements of Edica’s conspiracy conviction were established beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).
Edica also argues that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana conviction. She claims that there was no evidence that she possessed or exercised control over the marijuana, the trailer, or the vehicle towing the trailer, or that she acted through Zonia. To support this conviction, the Government had to prove that Edica knowingly possessed a controlled substance with intent to distribute it. Patino-Prado, 533 F.3d at 309. “Possession may be actual or constructive, may be joint among several defendants, and may be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence.” Ramos-Cardenas, 524 F.3d at 605. “Constructive possession may be shown by ownership, dominion or control over the contraband itself, or dominion or control over the premises or the vehicle in which the contraband was concealed.” United States v. Salinas-Salinas, 555 F.2d 470, 473 (5th Cir. 1977). “Existence of a ‘working relationship’ between [the defendants] would support an inference of such dominion or control.” United States v. Galvan, 693 F.2d 417, 421 (5th Cir. 1982). The evidence showed that Zonia, the owner of the vehicle towing the trailer and the one who picked up the trailer from Pancho, had constructive possession of the drugs in the trailer. The evidence of the conspiracy between Edica and Zonia to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, discussed above, and Edica’s presence while the trailer was hooked up show the existence of a “working relationship” with Zonia, sufficient to support an inference that Edica exercised joint dominion or control over the drugs. United States v. Moreno, 649 8 No. 08-41362 F.2d 309, 313 (5th Cir. 1981). A reasonable jury could conclude from this evidence that the possession element of this offense was established beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319.
Edica argues that because there was no evidence of her participation in the conspiracy and no evidence of her possession of the marijuana, the evidence was insufficient to support her importation conviction. To prove importation, the Government had to establish that: “(1) the defendant played a role in bringing a quantity of a controlled substance into the United States from outside of the country; (2) the defendant knew the substance was controlled; and (3) the defendant knew the substance would enter the United States.” United States v. Moreno, 185 F.3d 465, 471 (5th Cir. 1999); see 21 U.S.C. § 952(a). As addressed above, the evidence shows both her participation in the conspiracy and possession of the marijuana. This same evidence shows that Edica played a role in bringing the marijuana into the United States.
Zonia asserts that the evidence was insufficient to prove her knowledge, an element of each of her offenses of conviction. See Patino-Prado, 533 F.3d at 309 (conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute); Moreno, 185 F.3d at 471 (importation). However, the object of the knowledge differs for each offense. The conspiracy offense required proof of the defendant’s knowledge of the agreement to violate narcotics laws. Patino-Prado, 533 F.3d at 309. The possession offense required proof that the defendant knowingly possessed a controlled substance, while the importation offense required that the defendant knew that the substance she was importing was a controlled substance. United States v. Igbinosun, 528 F.3d 387, 392-93 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 725 (2008). Zonia’s arguments challenge only the sufficiency of the evidence to show 9 No. 08-41362 that she knew of the marijuana hidden in the trailer. See Stalnaker, 571 F.3d at 433 (holding that inadequately briefed sufficiency claims are waived). Ordinarily, knowledge of drugs can be inferred from the defendant’s control over the vehicle in which the drugs are found; “however, when the drugs are hidden, control over the vehicle alone is not sufficient to prove knowledge.” United States v. Mendoza, 522 F.3d 482, 489 (5th Cir. 2008). In such cases, “this court requires other circumstantial evidence that is suspicious in nature or demonstrates guilty knowledge.” Id. “This is so because it is at least a fair assumption that a third party might have concealed the controlled substances in the vehicle with the intent to use the unwitting defendant as the carrier in a smuggling enterprise.” United States v. Ramos-Garcia, 184 F.3d 463, 465 (5th Cir. 1999). This also applies to contraband hidden in a trailer. United States v. Garcia-Flores, 246 F.3d 451, 454 (5th Cir. 2001). Such other evidence “may include nervousness, conflicting statements to law enforcement officials, and an implausible story.” United States v. Jones, 185 F.3d 459, 464 (5th Cir. 1999). Inconsistent statements to border patrol officers regarding the defendant’s method of travel and purpose of the trip “are well-recognized circumstantial evidence of guilty knowledge.” Mendoza, 522 F.3d at 489-90. Zonia’s inconsistent statements given to the CBP officers and ICE agents about her use of the trailer and the purpose of her trip were evidence of her guilty knowledge. Id. She argues that she testified that the officers and agents either misunderstood her or lied about what she said. Whether to believe the law enforcement officers’ testimony over Zonia’s testimony was a question for the jury. Ramos-Cardenas, 524 F.3d at 605. Zonia further argues that her testimony that Pancho asked her to use the drug-filled trailer to deliver a table and chairs to unnamed people in a park was plausible. Again, this was a question for the jury. Id. The jury could also infer guilty knowledge based on the quantity and value of the drugs, over 121 kilograms of marijuana valued between $15,000 and 10 No. 08-41362 $39,000, which is unlikely to have been entrusted to an unsuspecting driver. Garcia-Flores, 246 F.3d at 455. A reasonable jury could conclude from all of this evidence that the knowledge element of Zonia’s possession conviction was established beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319.
Zonia also notes that the Government tried to make its case through hearsay evidence of Edica’s statements to the CBP officers that were too vague to rise to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the district court instructed the jury not to consider Edica’s statements in any way with respect to Zonia. Juries are presumed to follow their instructions. Patino-Prado, 533 F.3d at 313. Moreover, the Government did not refer to this evidence in its closing arguments regarding Zonia’s guilt. Zonia argues that Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968), “and its progeny place little or no value on this type of testimony because it is testimony that remains untested by cross-examination.” She contends that the admission of this unobjected-to evidence of Edica’s statements should be reviewed for plain error to determine whether it had a significant impact on the finding of guilt. However, she makes no further argument regarding the admission of these statements. An appellant’s brief must contain “appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies.” FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(9)(A). Although she cites Bruton, Zonia does not provide any reasons for her contention that the use of Edica’s statements violated Bruton or that the use of those statements had a significant impact on the finding of guilt. Thus, she has waived any Brutonviolation argument by failing to adequately brief it. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993) (issues not briefed adequately are waived); see Stalnaker, 571 F.3d 428, 433 (applying waiver rule in direct criminal appeal).