Opinion ID: 742499
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: 11 Trapp argues the government presented insufficient evidence to prove predicate acts six, seven, and eight. This court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the government to determine whether any rational[ ] trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Horn, 946 F.2d 738, 741 (10th Cir.1991). To prove a pattern of racketeering activity under RICO, the government must establish two or more predicate offenses which are related to the activities of the enterprise. United States v. Zang, 703 F.2d 1186, 1194 (10th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 828 (1983). 12 Trapp claims the evidence supporting predicate act six was insufficient to show that Trapp, rather than Mitchell, solicited and received bribes from Collvins and Foley. A reasonable juror, however, could have found Trapp and Mitchell shared a common objective to solicit and receive bribes. Both Collvins and Foley testified as to their conversations with Mitchell and Trapp and the circumstances of the meeting between the four. This was sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to have found Trapp guilty of predicate act six. 13 Trapp alleges that his conviction on predicate act seven involves an impermissible variance between the evidence at trial and the allegation in the indictment. The propriety of a variance in the evidence is a question of law reviewed de novo. United States v. Cardall, 885 F.2d 656, 670 (10th Cir.1989). In the indictment, the government alleged that the solicitation constituting predicate act seven took place in about the summer of 1989. At trial, however, the key witness, Grant, testified that the solicitation occurred in 1991. 4 Trapp appears to claim that this variance in dates precludes any reasonable jury from finding him guilty of predicate act seven. A variance in date alone does not establish that no rational trier of fact could have believed the witness' testimony. See United States v. Nunez, 668 F.2d 1116, 1127 (10th Cir.1981) (finding jury could reasonably convict defendant even though there was variance in time alleged in indictment and time proven at trial). 14 Trapp claims witness Chappell was not credible and that his testimony concerning predicate act eight was uncorroborated. Trapp thus seems to argue that no reasonable jury could have found him guilty. This court, however, has recognized the general rule that in a criminal case a jury may convict a defendant on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. United States v. Sloan, 65 F.3d 861, 863 (10th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 824 (1996). Moreover, this court has held that [c]redibility choices are resolved in favor of the jury's verdict. Horn, 946 F.2d at 741. There is thus no reason to disturb the jury's finding that Trapp was guilty of predicate act eight.