Opinion ID: 2979243
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal, we must determine “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). “To convict a person of ‘attempt’ to commit a drug offense, the government must establish two essential elements: (1) the intent to engage in the proscribed criminal activity, and (2) the commission of an overt act which constitutes a substantial step towards commission of the proscribed criminal activity.” United States v. Pennyman, 889 F.2d 104, 106 (6th Cir. 1989). A substantial step is “conduct strongly corroborative of the firmness of the defendant’s criminal intent.” United States. v. Bilderbeck, 163 F.3d 971, 975 (6th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). However, “the substantial step [must] consist of objective acts that mark the defendant’s conduct as criminal in nature.” Id. -3- No. 09-3191 United States v. Dixon A rational juror could have concluded that Dixon took a substantial step toward the commission of the offense. For example, there is evidence of negotiation between Dixon and the CI: Dixon indicated he could do something with the cocaine; they talked about price; and they discussed the amount of cocaine the CI would sell Dixon. Although the two men never agreed on the amount that Dixon would give the CI up front, the CI said he was broke and that it would be okay for Dixon to just bring him a little. Dixon appeared to agree to that when he brought $2,400 to the location of the exchange. Moreover, Dixon appeared willing and ready to take possession of the cocaine, evidenced by the fact that he carried an empty bag in which to place the cocaine. Under Bilderbeck, a rational trier of fact could easily have found that Dixon’s acts constituted a substantial step towards possession of the cocaine. See 163 F.3d at 976-77 (finding sufficient evidence of a substantial step even though the defendant never agreed on a price or quantity of cocaine or attempted to take possession of the cocaine). Dixon also contends that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate his subjective intent to possess the cocaine. Specifically, he points to the fact that he only had $2,400 in his possession—far short of the agreed-upon $120,000 for six kilograms. However, because the CI simply asked Dixon to bring him “a little” bit of money, the fact that Dixon did not have the entire $120,000 does not indicate he did not intend to take possession of the cocaine. Dixon’s own words and actions constituted evidence of his subjective intent. Although Dixon is correct that his statements expressed incredulity at the fact that the CI robbed the stash house, a jury could reasonably infer his statements were expressions of surprise or astonishment, rather than literal disbelief. Thus, his statements do not negate his other expressions of intent. Construing the -4- No. 09-3191 United States v. Dixon evidence in the light most favorable to the government, a reasonable juror could conclude that Dixon’s statements and actions demonstrated his intent to possess and distribute cocaine.