Opinion ID: 582735
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Was There Sufficient Evidence to Support a Finding of

Text: 11 Possession Under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)? 12 Appellant contends that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of cocaine possession--one of the elements of a § 841(a)(1) charge. According to appellant, [s]howing that one is present in the proximity of a cache of drugs is not sufficient to demonstrate constructive possession, nor is the fact that the person accused habited the apartment where the drugs were found sufficient to impute constructive possession. Appellant's Brief at 20. We conclude that constructive possession is not an element of a § 841(a)(1) charge where, as here, appellant was charged under the aiding and abetting statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2. We therefore reject appellant's claim. 13 In this case, appellant was indicted and subsequently convicted of 14 knowingly and intentionally ... possess[ing] with intent to distribute in excess of 1/2 kilogram of a mixture containing cocaine, a Schedule II narcotic drug controlled substance, all in violation of Section 841(a)(1) of Title 21, United States Code, and Section 2 of Title 18, United States Code, with penalties as provided in Title 21, United States Code, Section 841(b)(1)(B). 15 R.Vol. I, Doc. 90 at 3 (emphasis added). According to 18 U.S.C. § 2, a defendant may be charged as a principal in the commission of a substantive criminal offense whenever he aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission.... In order to prove a crime of aiding and abetting, the government must prove that the defendant associated with the criminal venture, that he purposefully participated in it, and that he sought by his actions to bring it about. United States v. Vaden, 912 F.2d 780, 783 (5th Cir.1990); United States v. Medina, 887 F.2d 528, 532 (5th Cir.1989). 16 Here, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that appellant aided and abetted Alvarez in the commission of the 841(a) offense. As we noted in United States v. Culpepper, 834 F.2d 879 (10th Cir.1987), [e]vidence is considered sufficient to support a criminal conviction if, when viewed in the light most favorable to the government, a reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 881 (citation omitted). We think it was perfectly reasonable for the jury to conclude that appellant associated with the criminal venture, that he purposefully participated in it, and that he sought by his actions to bring it about. 17 In any event, we also conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support a finding of constructive possession on the part of appellant. As we noted in Culpepper, knowing exercise of dominion and control over the narcotics constitutes constructive possession, and constructive possession may be joint among several individuals. Id. The fact that the cocaine was found in appellant's apartment, coupled with the testimony of Alvarez and various law enforcement officers, supports the conclusion that appellant constructively possessed the cocaine. We therefore affirm the conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine. 18