Opinion ID: 600472
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: 3 Hummasti argues that the district court erred in denying his motions for acquittal because there was insufficient evidence of (1) specific intent to use force, violence or intimidation, and (2) conduct which constitutes a substantial step toward commission of the robbery. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, the appellate court inquire[s] whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to prosecution and to the verdicts, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Buffington, 815 F.2d 1292, 1301 (9th Cir.1987) (citations and internal quotations omitted). 4 We conclude that the jury could have found the essential elements of attempted bank robbery to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The threat implicit in Hummasti's written and verbal demands for money, together with the testimony of the teller that she was frightened, are sufficient to support the jury's verdict that Hummasti intended to rob the bank by intimidation. See United States v. Lucas, 963 F.2d 243, 248 (9th Cir.1992); United States v. Hopkins, 703 F.2d 1102, 1103 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 963, 104 S.Ct. 399, 78 L.Ed.2d 341 (1983). 5 In addition, Hummasti's conduct plainly constituted a substantial step toward commission of the robbery. Indeed, Hummasti completed every step necessary on his part to rob the bank; it remained only for the teller to hand over the money. Accordingly, the verdict is supported by sufficient evidence.