Opinion ID: 3002664
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Irby argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to sustain his conviction on the charged offense. When presented with a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we typically “will reverse a conviction only when no rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Knox, 540 F.3d 708, 719 (7th Cir. 2008). While this standard is “highly deferential” and “nearly insurmountable,” id., where, as here, the defendant did not move for a judgment of acquittal in the district court, the even more stringent plain-error standard applies, United States v. Beaver, 515 No. 08-1307 5 F.3d 730, 741 (7th Cir. 2008). In order to prevail, the defendant must demonstrate that a manifest miscarriage of justice will occur if his conviction is not reversed. Id. Put another way, “ ‘reversal is warranted only if the record is devoid of evidence pointing to guilt, or if the evidence on a key element was so tenuous that a conviction would be shocking.’ ” United States v. Van Allen, 524 F.3d 814, 819 (7th Cir. 2008) (quoting Beaver, 515 F.3d at 741-42). In order to convict Irby under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), the government was required to prove that he (1) knowingly or intentionally possessed crack cocaine (2) with the intent to distribute it (3) while knowing it was a controlled substance. United States v. Campbell, 534 F.3d 599, 605 (7th Cir. 2008). The government can prove the first element by demonstrating that the possession was either actual or constructive. Id. The defendant is correct when he says that he was never found in actual possession of the crack. That leaves constructive possession, in which case the government must prove Irby had ownership, dominion, or control over the crack, thus establishing a nexus between him and the drugs. United States v. Parra, 402 F.3d 752, 761-62 (7th Cir. 2005). “Mere proximity to the drug, mere presence on the property where it is located, or mere association, without more, with the person who does control the drug or property on which it is found, is insufficient to support a finding of possession.” United States v. DiNovo, 523 F.2d 197, 201 (7th Cir. 1975) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Before the raid, Batterham observed the defendant exit and reenter the house after feeding a dog, which sug- 6 No. 08-1307 gested he was occupying the house. The presence of Irby’s state identification card, social security card, and mail addressed to him in the master bedroom demonstrated that he was living in the room where the marijuana and crack were found. Trial testimony established that the defendant came from the house, walked to Saraceno’s car, and attempted to sell marijuana, thus supporting the inference that he was dealing marijuana from the house. A jury reasonably could have inferred that the marijuana the defendant took to the car came from the master bedroom where the crack and marijuana were found and which he was occupying. The fact that the bags of marijuana and the loose marijuana on the bed in the master bedroom were mingled with the baggies of crack supports an inference that the crack and marijuana were owned or controlled by the same person. This evidence was substantial enough to show a nexus between Irby and the crack.3 Regarding the intent to distribute element, a government witness testified that the quantity of crack (16.9 grams) was inconsistent with personal use and that its packaging in fifty-nine baggies was consistent with an intent to distribute. The four scales found in the master 3 Irby asserts that the unrebutted testimony of Tameka Edwards and Jonathan Thomas that the marijuana and crack were theirs (respectively) casts doubt on his possession of the crack. The jury heard this testimony and obviously rejected it; on a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, we will not secondguess the jury’s credibility determinations. United States v. Brandt, 546 F.3d 912, 917 (7th Cir. 2008). No. 08-1307 7 bedroom also suggest that the crack had been prepared for sale rather than personal consumption. This evidence was sufficient to show that Irby intended to distribute the crack. Irby does not contend that evidence was lacking on the third element—knowledge that the crack was a controlled substance. Even had he made this argument, the surveillance cameras around the front entrance, the livefeed monitors, and the scanner set to the police frequency suggest that Irby wished to avoid detection by law enforcement and were sufficient to permit an inference that he knew that the crack was a controlled substance. Cf. United States v. Mendoza, 510 F.3d 749, 752-53 (7th Cir. 2007) (the fact that a defendant required a buyer to go through certain procedures before giving him drugs suggested he was trying to avoid drawing the attention of the authorities and allowed a reasonable jury to infer the defendant knew he was distributing a controlled substance). For these reasons, we easily conclude that the record is not devoid of evidence of Irby’s guilt and that the evidence on each element of the charged offense was not so slight that his conviction is shocking. Accordingly, his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence fails.