Opinion ID: 334674
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Coppins Appeal

Text: 6 1. Sufficiency of Evidence. Coppins argues that the only evidence relating to him was Agent Beverly's testimony that Beverly conducted two narcotics transactions with Martin in Coppins' automobile, with Coppins present. Mere presence, he correctly points out, is not sufficient to sustain a conviction. E. g. United States v. James, 5 Cir. 1976, 528 F.2d 999, 1013. The evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the Government showed more than mere presence, however. On May 15, 1975, the date of the first transaction, shortly after Agent Beverly was informed by Martin that a  connection who had the cocaine would join them soon, Coppins drove up. When Beverly sat down in Coppins' car, he noticed the cocaine lying on the front seat. The deal was consummated in Coppins' car. The day before the second transaction, June 15, 1975, Beverly visited Coppins' apartment; Coppins asked if Beverly had been shown the sample package of cocaine. On June 16, 1975, the second transfer took place, again in Coppins' car and with Coppins' knowledge. Based on that evidence, the jury concluded that Coppins was guilty of the offenses charged in the indictment. Our obligation under the Glasser standard does not permit us to disturb the jury's verdict. 7 2. Prosecutor's Argument. Coppins relies on the same arguments that Martin makes in support of his assertion that the prosecutor's closing argument to the jury denied him a fair trial. Since the same attorney represented both Martin and Coppins at the trial, Martin's arguments about the prejudicial impact of the disputed remark apply with equal force to Coppins. For the reasons stated above, we find no merit in this allegation. 8 Both of the convictions appealed from are affirmed. 9 AFFIRMED.