Opinion ID: 2554480
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sufficiency of the Evidence of Obstruction and Conspiracy

Text: Marta Campos next challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her convictions for obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice. We assess the evidence `in the light most favorable to the government, giving full play to the right of the jury to determine credibility, weigh the evidence, and draw justifiable inferences of fact. . . .' [39] We make no distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence. [40] And the government's evidence need not negate every possible inference of innocence to support a guilty verdict. [41] Only when there is `no evidence from which a reasonable mind might fairly infer guilt beyond a reasonable doubt' may we reverse a conviction for evidentiary insufficiency. [42] In pertinent part, D.C.Code § 22-722(a) (2001) provides that a person commits obstruction of justice if he or she: (2) Knowingly uses intimidating or physical force, threatens or corruptly persuades another person, or by threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede a witness or officer in any official proceeding, with intent to: (A) Influence, delay, or prevent the truthful testimony of the person in an official proceeding. . . . In order to prove criminal conspiracy, the government must show: 1) an agreement between two or more people to commit a criminal offense; 2) knowing and voluntary participation in the agreement by the defendant with the intent to commit a criminal objective; and 3) commission in furtherance of the conspiracy of at least one overt act by a co-conspirator during the conspiracy. [43] Campos's sole contention is that the evidence was insufficient to prove that she possessed the requisite intent for obstruction or conspiracy to obstruct justice. The government, she asserts, failed to present evidence allowing a jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that she intended to prevent truthful testimony by Kenny Loza. According to Campos, what evidence of obstruction there was required the jury to make unreasonable inferential leaps, asshe claims, though she did not testify at trialshe believed in her brother's innocence and Melvin Morales testified that she only meant to dissuade Loza from testifying falsely against him. Campos's argument is not persuasive. The intent required for obstruction of justice often must be inferred from the context and nature of the alleged criminal conduct. [44] And [a] conspiratorial agreement may be inferred from circumstances that `include the conduct of defendants in mutually carrying out a common illegal purpose, the nature of the act done, the relationship of the parties and the interests of the alleged conspirators.' [45] In this case, there was evidence that Campos-Alvarez formulated a plan to bribe Kenny Loza not to identify him at trial as one of his assailants. To effectuate that plan, Campos-Alvarez needed help, as he himself was incarcerated. The evidence shows that he turned first to his former girlfriend, Viera-Miranda, and then to his sister, Marta Campospersons whom he believed he could trust. Campos actively joined with her brother in urging Viera-Miranda to contact Loza and bribe him so he won't come to court. Campos also approached Melvin Morales for help in locating Loza so that she could offer the bribe herself. From this evidence, the jury reasonably could infer that Campos conspired with her brother to pay Loza not to appear at trial or testify against him, regardless of the truth or falsity of his anticipated testimony. The jury was not obliged to credit Morales's account that Campos sincerely wanted Loza to go to court and do what he got to do if he was certain that her brother shot him. (Nor was the jury obliged to believe Viera-Miranda's claim that she believed the money was being offered to forestall the conviction of an innocent man.) Thus, we are satisfied there was evidence for the jury to find Campos guilty of obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice beyond a reasonable doubt.