Opinion ID: 552246
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Cultivation of Marijuana

Text: 134 Finally, defendants Russell and Mary Sullivan claim that the evidence does not support their convictions on Count 6 of the indictment for manufacturing (cultivating) marijuana. 46 The defendants contend that the evidence is insufficient to show that either defendant knowingly manufactured the marijuana. 47 135 The government devotes only two very short paragraphs in its brief to this issue. It does not cite record evidence except to rely exclusively on one short passage from the tape recorded conversation of July 3, 1988 in support of its conclusory assertion that [t]he evidence was sufficient to sustain the challenged convictions of appellants. Brief of the United States at 57. 136 When the search warrants were executed at the Sullivan residence on July 20, 1988, agent Higbee located 61 live marijuana plants growing in pots behind the pond and down a little ways. XIII R. at 1116. Higbee estimated that the location of the marijuana was approximately 100 yards from the Sullivan residence, id. at 1125, but admitted that he did not know who owned the property where the plants were located. Id. at 1124. (The government did not introduce any evidence of ownership of the land in question.) Higbee also testified that there was a path leading from the Sullivan residence in the general direction of the marijuana. Id. at 1118. He admitted, however, that the marijuana was on the opposite side of an approximately seven-acre pond, id. at 1127, and to get to the marijuana he had to walk up over a dam. Id. at 1123. The government points to the tape recorded conversation of July 3, 1988, involving Russell and Mary Sullivan, Steve Howell, and Evelyn Rogers, as evidence of Russell and Mary Sullivan's dominion and control of the marijuana. 48 137 We think the evidence, both direct and circumstantial, is insufficient to establish the required elements of possession or scienter. Higbee's testimony clearly is insufficient to support an inference of knowing cultivation as to either Russell or Mary Sullivan. There is no substantial evidence that either defendant participated in growing the marijuana plants, or that they knew the plants existed. The testimony that the plants were growing in the area near the Russell's home, without more, is insufficient. The sounds on the tape would support only a guess as to guilt. 138 Evidence that raises only a suspicion of guilt cannot sustain a criminal conviction. Accordingly, Russell and Mary Sullivan's convictions on Count 6 are REVERSED with instructions to enter judgments of acquittal as to each defendant on that count.