Opinion ID: 754003
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: 3 Whitecotton moved for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the evidence. On appeal, he argues that the jury had insufficient evidence to support his conviction. This court reviews a claim of insufficient evidence to 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. United States v. Bahena-Cardenas, 70 F.3d 1071, 1072-73 (9th Cir.1995) (quotations omitted). 4 There was more than ample evidence in this case. The jury heard tapes of the drug transactions on April 17 and 18. The defense itself put the tapes into evidence, and Whitecotton, on the stand, identified his voice and stated I could have been there, but I don't recall every--every step to the events that occurred.... It sounds like I was there.... [ER pp. 70-71] Narcotics Agent Ken Poteet and Matthew Lineberry, Whitecotton's supplier for the second sale on April 18, both testified as percipient witnesses for the government. The government presented the drugs purchased during the two sales to Agent Poteet and had an expert identify them. The government's evidence was not only sufficient, it was strong.
5 Whitecotton argues, however, that the jury should have acquitted him or found him guilty only of simple possession because he was entrapped. At trial, Whitecotton argued entrapment, and the jury was instructed on the defense. There are two elements to the defense of entrapment: (1) government inducement of the crime, and (2) the absence of predisposition on the part of the defendant. United States v. Davis, 36 F.3d 1424, 1430 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1171, 115 S.Ct. 1147, 130 L.Ed.2d 1106 (1995). Entrapment is generally a question for the jury, and its finding should not be disturbed unless, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, no reasonable jury could have concluded that the defendants were predisposed to commit the charged offenses.... [and] there must be undisputed evidence that [the defendant was] induced to commit crimes by the government. Id. at 1430-31. 6 There was more than sufficient evidence of Whitecotton's predisposition. Whitecotton testified that he had possessed and used drugs with CI Maddox and with Lineberry, and that Lineberry supplied him with drugs. [ER p. 66] Whitecotton arranged the second drug sale on April 18, and did not testify to any reluctance to engage in the sale, nor did any other evidence show any reluctance to supply drugs to Agent Poteet. See id. at 1430 (most important factor for showing lack of predisposition is reluctance to engage in criminal activity). The jury also knew of Whitecotton's long drug use, and the tapes show his familiarity with his supplier. There was sufficient evidence that Whitecotton was not entrapped.
7 Whitecotton also argues that the jury should have concluded that he had a severe mental defect that made him unable to appreciate the nature and wrongfulness of his acts. The jury was instructed on this defense theory. 8 A defense psychologist offered expert testimony at Whitecotton's trial that due to long drug use and a head injury, Whitecotton had a mental age of 11, had no short-term memory, and did not know right from wrong. [ER p. 61] The defense argued that this made Whitecotton incapable of carrying out a business transaction such as a drug deal. [ER p. 63] 9 Yet the tapes of the drug deals showed Whitecotton participating coherently in negotiating amounts and prices for the drugs; he testified that he had bought a car, and could do simple math to estimate prices [ER p. 70]; and his testimony showed him to be articulate and that he understood the proceedings. There was sufficient evidence for the jury to reject his defense of mental defect or diminished capacity.