Opinion ID: 6065
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Defendant/appellants Michael Warner and Great Western argue that the evidence was insufficient to establish that they conspired to ship obscenity in interstate commerce and that they aided and abetted the shipment of obscenity in interstate commerce.2 This court reviews sufficiency of the evidence challenges to determine whether a reasonable jury could find that the evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Salazar, 958 F.2d 1285, 1291 (5th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 185 (1992). In evaluating such challenges, we review the evidence -- and all the inferences reasonably drawn from it -- in the light most favorable to the verdict. See id. at 1290-91. Under these established standards, defendants' claims are meritless. As an initial matter, we note that this review of evidentiary sufficiency as to both the conspiracy and the 2 Warner and Great Western were found guilty of conspiring -- in violation of 18 U.S.C. §371 (1988) -- to violate 18 U.S.C. §1462. Section 1462 makes knowingly us[ing] any express company or other common carrier, for carriage in interstate or foreign commerce -- (a) any obscene ... motion picture film punishable by a fine and/or imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. §1462. They were also found guilty on two counts of aiding and abetting the commission of the §1462 offense. 18 U.S.C. § 2. 3 substantive obscenity convictions contemplates that corporations cannot in and of themselves possess a mental state. However, a corporation is criminally liable for the unlawful acts of its agents, provided that the conduct is within the scope of the agent's authority, whether actual or apparent. See United States v. Bi-Co Pavers, Inc., 741 F.2d 730, 737 (5th Cir. 1984). Thus, while Great Western cannot possess the requisite intent to conspire or aid and abet, Michael Warren -- its president and undisputedly authorized agent at all times -- can. His unlawful acts are the basis for Great Western's criminal liability. As to the merits of defendants' challenge, a reasonable jury could find that Warner and Great Western conspired with the other defendants -- CPLC, Video Team, Colvin, and Browning -- to transport obscene videos in interstate commerce. The district court correctly instructed the jury that for a defendant to be guilty of conspiracy, the government must prove (1) that there was an agreement by two or more persons to violate the law; (2) that the defendant knew of and voluntarily joined the conspiracy; and (3) that overt acts were committed to further the conspirators' purpose. The appellants' only challenge to sufficiency concerns the second of the district court's requirements; Warner argues that he had no knowledge of the unlawful purpose of the conspiracy and had no intent to further it. However, the evidence undercuts Warner's position. Warner is the president and part owner of Great Western, an entity devoted largely to the production of sexually explicit 4 box covers and other materials for sexually explicit video tapes. Great Western regularly manufactured box covers and printed advertisements for co-defendant Video Team, a wholly owned subsidiary of CPLC dedicated to the distribution of sexually explicit video tapes. More specifically, Great Western manufactured the box covers for Interracial Anal 1, Anal Sluts Volume 2, and Kinky Vision -- three of the four tapes charged as obscene in the two substantive counts.3 Furthermore, Warner always examined the finished printing jobs of the sexually explicit box covers. But the evidence linking Great Western and Warner with the conspiracy hardly stops here. In addition to having an intimate knowledge of the sexually explicit nature of his own printing business, a singularly unsurprising conclusion, Warner is well acquainted with CPLC and its wholly owned subsidiary, Video Team. In fact, CPLC and Video Team are not just important clients, they are the Warner family business. Warner's father founded the predecessor corporation to CPLC, and Warner worked there before going over to Great Western. Warner's brother-in-law, Donald Browning, is the president and part owner of CPLC. Vicki Browning, Warner's sister and Donald's wife, is an employee of Great Western. The two families socialize 3 Count two alleged that Beyond Taboo and Kinky Vision were obscene, whereas count four alleged that Interracial Anal 1 and Anal Sluts Volume 2 were obscene. The jury's verdict found Great Western and Warner guilty on both counts of aiding and abetting the interstate transportation of these obscene videos but without specifying which of the tapes were found obscene. Drawing all reasonable inferences favorable to the verdict, we may assume that as to count two the jury concluded that Kinky Vision -- for which Great Western printed the box -- was obscene. 5 frequently, and Donald Browning met with Warner everyday at his Great Western office across the street from CPLC and Video Team.4 Not unexpectedly, Warner -- a CPLC board member -- has a significant financial stake in the fortunes of CPLC and its subsidiary Video Team. He earned $75,000 a year from CPLC distributions via a family trust and his interest upon dissolution of the trust would approximate 20% of CPLC and its various holdings. Further, Warner owns a substantial interest in the real property and building housing CPLC and Video Team. Viewed cumulatively, the evidence is sufficient to prove that Warner, and Great Western through him, knew of the unlawful purpose of the conspiracy to ship the obscene videos interstate and that he joined it with the intent to further its purpose.5 4 Close relationships can be part of the circumstantial evidence from which a jury may infer that the defendant knew of a conspiracy. See Salazar, 958 F.2d at 1294 - 95. 5 Warner and Great Western raise First Amendment and Fifth Amendment objections to their conspiracy conviction on the basis that these constitutional provisions require very specific knowledge on the part of the defendants: namely, that the defendants must have known that the videos for which they only printed boxes would be distributed to a community where they would be deemed obscene. Defendants' constitutional objections do not move us. First, defendants' arguments assume that the only basis for their conspiracy convictions is their role in printing the boxes for the obscene videos. As the evidence described in part I.A. suggests, this is false. Second, knowledge that the materials are sexually explicit is the only scienter requirement under 18 U.S.C. §1462 (1988). See United States v. Hill, 500 F.2d 733, 740 (5th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 952 (1975). Furthermore, knowledge of the sexually explicit nature of the materials as the required scienter has been upheld against similar challenges to 18 U.S.C. §1461 (1988) -- a criminal provision making the mailing of obscene materials punishable by fine and/or imprisonment. See Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 123 (1974). The fact that the defendants were prosecuted for conspiring to violate §1462 -- 6 With regard to the aiding and abetting counts, this court has observed that typically the same evidence will support both a conspiracy and an aiding and abetting conviction. See Salazar, 958 F.2d at 1292 (citation omitted). Thus, as to the two substantive obscenity offense counts, the same evidence that proved Warner and Great Western conspired to violate §1462 is sufficient to support their conviction for aiding and abetting the §1462 violation. See id.