Opinion ID: 47372
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Appellants argue that insufficient evidence supported their conspiracy convictions, as there was no evidence that Stickel, who was merely present at the scene and lent Rodriguez his car for a short period of time, had any communications with Rodriguez demonstrating an agreement between them. Stickel argues that, although there was evidence that he vouched for the reliability of Rodriguez as a drug dealer and was familiar with controlled substances, such evidence only proved that he associated with Rodriguez and knew about the illegal nature of the activity. He contends that, furthermore, there was no evidence of a single, unified conspiracy, pointing out that the evidence, instead, showed that Stickel attempted to make a drug sale of his own. Rodriguez also contends that, because the evidence showed that he was a homeless person who was running an errand with the intent only to procure a small amount of crack to smoke himself, insufficient evidence supported his conviction for possession with intent to distribute crack. Regarding his substantive conviction, Stickel argues that the evidence that he was familiar with controlled substances, had knowledge of the illegal transaction that was occurring, lent Rodriguez his car, and waited for Rodriguez to return, without additional evidence that he communicated with Rodriguez, was insufficient to convict him of 5 possession with intent to distribute cocaine, even under an aiding and abetting theory. Furthermore, he argues that, because the drugs were in his car only for a short period of time while they were being transported by another person in connection with someone else’s drug deal, he never had dominion or control over the drugs such that he was in constructive possession of them. We review the district court’s denial of a motion for a judgment of acquittal de novo, viewing the facts and drawing all inferences in the light most favorable to the government. United States v. Descent, 292 F.3d 703, 706 (11th Cir. 2002). To affirm the denial of a Rule 29 motion, we “need only determine that a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that the evidence established the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (internal citation omitted). “The evidence may be sufficient though it does not ‘exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence or [is not] wholly inconsistent with every conclusion except that of guilt. . . . A jury is free to choose among reasonable constructions of the evidence.’” United States v. Montes-Cardenas, 746 F.2d 771, 778 (11th Cir. 1984) (quoting United States v. Bell, 678 F.2d 547, 549 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc)).
To sustain a conviction for conspiracy to possess cocaine base with intent to distribute, the government must prove that (1) an agreement existed between at 6 least two people, (2) the defendant knew of the conspiracy, and (3) the defendant knowingly and voluntarily became a part of the conspiracy. United States v. Andrews, 953 F.2d 1312, 1318 (11th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). The government does not need to prove the existence of a formal agreement, but rather may rely on circumstantial evidence to show “a meeting of the minds to commit an illegal act.” United States v. Toler, 144 F.3d 1423, 1426 (11th Cir. 1998) (internal quotations and citations omitted). “A defendant’s knowing participation in a conspiracy may be established through proof of surrounding circumstances such as acts committed by the defendant which furthered the purpose of the conspiracy.” United States v. Bain, 736 F.2d 1480, 1485 (11th Cir. 1984) (citation omitted). Mere association with individuals involved with drugs is insufficient to prove that a conspiracy to distribute drugs exists. United States v. Hardy, 895 F.2d 1331, 1334-35 (11th Cir. 1990). Additionally, although presence is a permissible factor to be considered in determining whether a defendant conspired with another, “it is well settled that mere presence will not support a conviction.” United States v. Charles, 313 F.3d 1278, 1284 (11th Cir. 2002). “Mere presence, guilty knowledge, even sympathetic observation” and close association with a coconspirator are insufficient, without more, to support a conviction for conspiracy to distribute drugs. United States v. Lyons, 53 F.3d 1198, 1201 (11th Cir. 1995). Yet, 7 such factors may raise a permissible inference of participation in a conspiracy, which the jury may consider as a “material and probative factor . . . in reaching its decision.” United States v. Hernandez, 896 F.2d 513, 518 (11th Cir. 1990), holding modified on other grounds by, Toler, 144 F.3d at 1426 n.3. Finally, a defendant may be culpable even if he played only a minor role in the conspiracy, since a conspirator need not know the details of each act making up the conspiracy. United States v. Parrado, 911 F.2d 1567, 1571 (11th Cir. 1990). Because the record evidence established that Stickel and Rodriguez agreed to work together to sell cocaine base, and that Stickel voluntarily took actions to ensure the drug deal’s success, we conclude that sufficient evidence supported their conspiracy convictions.
“In order to obtain a conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), the [g]overnment must establish the existence of three elements: (1) knowledge (of one’s possession); (2) possession of a controlled substance; and (3) intent to distribute that substance.” United States v. Wilson, 183 F.3d 1291, 1299 n.13 (11th Cir. 1999). We have noted that “[a]ll three elements can be proven by either direct or circumstantial evidence.” United States v. Poole, 878 F.2d 1389, 1391-92 (11th Cir. 1989). “Evidence of surrounding circumstances can prove knowledge.” 8 United States v. Alvarez, 837 F.2d 1024, 1027 (11th Cir. 1988). “Possession may be actual or constructive, and the latter can be established by evidence showing ownership, dominion, or control over the contraband itself or the premises on which it is concealed.” Montes-Cardenas, 746 F.2d at 778. “[M]ere ownership of a vehicle containing contraband is insufficient to constitute constructive possession.” United States v. Barrera, 547 F.2d 1250, 1256 (5th Cir. 1977). “Constructive possession may be shared with others, and can be established by circumstantial or direct evidence.” Montes-Cardenas, 746 F.2d at 778. Appellants were also charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 2, which provides that “[w]hoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.” See 18 U.S.C. § 2(a). In order to convict a defendant on an aiding and abetting theory, the government must prove that “the defendant (1) associated himself with the crime, (2) intended to bring it about, and (3) sought by his actions to make it succeed.” United States v. Kelly, 888 F.2d 732, 742 (11th Cir. 1989). “To prove a charge of aiding and abetting possession of drugs with intent to distribute, the [g]overnment must connect the defendant to both aspects of the crime: possession and intent to distribute.” Id. Because 18 U.S.C. § 2 does not “establish a separate crime, . . . [but] merely permits one who aids and abets the 9 commission of a crime to be punished as a principal, . . . [a]n individual . . . may be indicted as a principal for the commission of a substantive crime and convicted upon evidence that he or she aided and abetted only.” United States v. Walser, 3 F.3d 380, 388 (11th Cir. 1993) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Because the evidence showed that Rodriguez purposefully drove to Stock Island to procure crack cocaine and then sold the entire amount to a confidential informant, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to prove his knowing possession of the drugs with the intent to distribute. In addition, because the evidence established that Stickel lent Rodriguez his car, knowing that he was going to use it to procure drugs, and took actions to make sure that the drug deal was completed, we conclude that substantial evidence supported his conviction for aiding and abetting Rodriguez’s possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine.