Opinion ID: 1890965
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: At the close of the government's case, Beaner moved for a judgment of acquittal, but the court denied the motion. Beaner now argues that the trial court erred because the government failed to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the persons arrested were the same persons who committed the crime. He bases his argument on the fact that Antonio Brown, the only eyewitness to the crime, could not provide a particularized description of his assailants because they wore ski masks. Viewing the evidence as we must in the light most favorable to the government, see Nelson v. United States, 601 A.2d 582, 593 (D.C.1991) (citing cases), we conclude that the evidence of guilt in this case was very strong. Although the assailants masked their faces, Mr. Brown was able to determine their relative heights and complexions, and at trial both appellants stood side by side in the well of the court so that the jury could compare their heights. Officer Myhand apprehended Beaner after he fled from a Mazda bearing the license number of the Mazda reported stolen only a few minutes earlier, and wearing the very shoes identified as those stolen from Brown's feet. Ms. Bonney, notwithstanding some credibility issues (which were explored in full before the jury), testified that Beaner and Baham brought into her apartment several personal items belonging to Brown  including personal identification and a pager  and proceeded to divide up a quantity of money. In addition, she saw Beaner change out of black Timberland boots  identified by Brown as those worn by one of his assailants  upon returning to her apartment, and into the distinctive Air Jordan shoes which had been taken off Brown's feet. Viewed in its entirety, this evidence was more than sufficient to prove that Beaner was guilty of the crimes charged.