Opinion ID: 620472
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: We review de novo challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence in criminal cases. United States v. Futrell, 209 F.3d 1286, 1288 (11th Cir. 2000). In determining whether sufficient evidence supports an appellant’s convictions, we “must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and decide whether a reasonable fact finder could have reached a conclusion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Herrera, 931 F.2d 761, 762 (11th Cir. 1991). Furthermore, a “jury’s verdict cannot be overturned if any reasonable construction of the evidence would have allowed the jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. “The evidence need not be inconsistent with every reasonable hypothesis except guilt, and the jury is free to choose between or among the reasonable conclusions to be drawn from the evidence presented at trial.” United States v. Poole, 878 F.2d 1389, 1391 (11th Cir. 1989). We have defined the offense of mail fraud as consisting of: (1) an intentional participation in a scheme to defraud a person of money or property, and (2) the use of the mails in furtherance of the scheme. The latter element is satisfied if the scheme’s completion was dependent in some way upon information and documents passed through the mails and if the defendant acted with knowledge that the use of the mails would follow in the ordinary course of business or could reasonably be foreseen. 8 United States v. Smith, 934 F.2d 270, 271 (11th Cir. 1991). A scheme to defraud requires proof of a material misrepresentation, or the omission or concealment of a material fact intended to deceive another person out of money or property. United States v. Maxwell, 579 F.3d 1282, 1299 (11th Cir. 2009). To sustain the conspiracy conviction, the government is required to prove “(1) an agreement among two or more persons to achieve an unlawful objective; (2) knowing and voluntary participation in the agreement; and (3) an overt act by a conspirator in furtherance of the agreement.” United States v. Hasson, 333 F.3d 1264, 1270 (11th Cir. 2003). Circumstantial evidence can be used to illustrate proof of knowledge of the scheme. Maxwell, 579 F.3d at 1299. Rodriguez argues that there was insufficient evidence as to his involvement in the scheme. However, we find that the jury had adequate evidence to support Rodriguez’s convictions. Based on the inconsistencies in his kidnapping story and the evidence contradicting it, a reasonable fact finder could have disbelieved it and found that he had constructed it to cover up his involvement in the scheme. Further, a reasonable fact finder could have inferred his knowledge of, and participation in, in the scheme from his disappearance just before the claim was filed and reemergence just after the claim was denied, his knowledge of the life insurance policies, the financial problems the Rodriguez’s were facing, and his 9 admission that he contacted his wife to request money from the life insurance policies. The jury’s verdict, therefore, cannot be overturned. AFFIRMED. 10