Opinion ID: 2974065
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: When reviewing a conviction to determine whether it is supported by sufficient evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the conviction and ask whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Samuels, 308 F.3d 662, 666 (6th Cir. 2002); United States v. Blakeney, 942 F.2d 1001, 1010 (6th Cir. 1991). In assessing the merits of such a challenge, we do not weigh the evidence, assess the credibility of the witnesses who testified, or substitute our judgment for the jury’s. United States v. Bartholomew, 310 F.3d 912, 922 (6th Cir. 2002); United States v. Welch, 97 F.3d 142, 148 (6th Cir. 1996). However, there must be substantial evidence in the record to support the verdict reached; that is, “evidence affording a substantial basis of fact from which the fact in issue can be reasonably inferred.” United States v. Green, 548 F.2d1261, 1266 (6th Cir. 1977). 6 In order to convict a defendant of a violation of § 922(g)(1), the government must prove (1) the defendant had been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; (2) the defendant knowingly possessed a firearm thereafter; and (3) the firearm possessed by the defendant traveled in or affected interstate commerce. United States v. Daniel, 134 F.3d 1259, 1263 (6th Cir. 1998). Hibbler challenges only the evidence used to support the finding that he possessed the weapon, arguing that Woolley’s testimony that he saw Hibbler running down the street with the gun in his hands is contradicted by Blake’s testimony that he recovered the gun from the waistband of Hibbler’s pants. Hibbler further contends that Wooley’s testimony is incredible because Hulley testified that there were no fingerprints found on the gun. Even if the testimony were conflicting, it is not this court’s place to weigh the credibility of the witnesses. But we see no conflict in the testimony. Woolley testified that he saw Hibbler running with the gun in his right hand; that he saw Hibbler – as he was running down the street directly in front of Woolley’s patrol car – bring that hand back in front of his body; and that he saw the gun grip sticking out of the front of his pants as he cornered Hibbler with the patrol car in the alley. Moreover, Wooley testified that he saw Blake take the gun from Hibbler’s waistband, and Blake testified that he had done so, which McMinn confirmed. Every officer who testified to seeing Hibbler on that day stated that he saw Hibbler with the gun. It matters not that Hibbler’s stepfather testified that he did not see Hibbler with a gun that day. That one individual did not see Hibbler with a gun is not sufficient to establish that Hibbler did not have a gun, and the jury was free to believe the officers’ testimony in any event. Finally, there is no requirement that fingerprints be present on a firearm in order to support a verdict that the defendant possessed it. See United States 7 v. Wells, 100 F. App’x 440, 445 (6th Cir. 2004) (gun); United States v. Clark, 56 F. App’x 217, 219 (6th Cir. 2003) (bags of cocaine). The evidence was plainly sufficient to support the verdict.