Opinion ID: 532968
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: 16 In reviewing claims of insufficient evidence, appellate courts must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, giving the government the benefit of all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from it. United States v. Sutton, 801 F.2d 1346, 1358 (D.C.Cir.1986). Even under a more lenient standard, however, Jack's conclusory contention that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction would still be without merit. 17 The essential elements of the offense of possession with intent to distribute are 1) possession, 2) knowledge, and 3) the intent to distribute. United States v. Price, 869 F.2d 801, 804 (5th Cir.1989). 18 Jack surely cannot dispute possession, as the officers who arrested him did so only after finding approximately $11,000 worth of cocaine base weighing well over fifty grams in the tote bag Jack was carrying. 19 Similarly, the evidence makes clear that Jack had the requisite knowledge. Detective Zattau testified that Jack admitted in a statement that he came to Washington to bring drugs and that he knew something was in the bag. R.A. 33, 36. Despite Jack's disavowal at trial of these admissions, the jury was entitled to credit the admissions in the statement rather than the denials at trial. Moreover, if the jury concluded that Jack was aware of the high probability that he was carrying drugs but deliberately avoided learning the truth of the matter, such a finding was sufficient to establish that he acted knowingly. United States v. Jewell, 532 F.2d 697 (9th Cir.) (en banc ), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 951 (1976). 20 Finally, there was ample evidence that Jack possessed the cocaine base with the intent to distribute it. Distribution within the meaning of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841 includes the transfer of drugs from one person to another and Jack admitted both at trial and in the pretrial statement that he gave to the police that he came to Washington for the sole purpose of delivering the tote bag and its contents to two women. The jury was also entitled to infer intent to distribute from the large quantity of cocaine base in the bag at the time of his arrest. United States v. Castellanos, 731 F.2d 979, 985 (D.C.Cir.1984).