Opinion ID: 2345595
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Denial of Stewart's Motion for Judgment of Acquittal

Text: Stewart argues that the trial judge should have granted his motion for a judgment of acquittal because the evidence was insufficient to prove his identity as a participant in Rosebure's murder. In support of his claim, Stewart emphasizes that Sue Ann Mascall, the only eyewitness to the shooting itself, did not recognize him as one of Rosebure's assailants, and that Geraldine Hart (the only witness who directly implicated him in the crime) was heavily impeachedmost notably, by her repeated failure to select Stewart's photograph even though she professed to know him. [45] While appellate evaluation of a claim of evidentiary insufficiency is emphatically not toothless, it is deferential. [46] In recognition of the jury's prerogatives in this case, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, giving full play to the right of the jury to determine credibility, weigh the evidence, and draw justifiable inferences of fact, and making no distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence. [47] The evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction so long as a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. [48] The evidence need not compel  such a finding in order to pass muster. [49] The prosecution case against Stewart was no means overwhelming. Nonetheless, we think a rational jury could find the evidence against him sufficiently probative to convict him of Rosebure's murder beyond a reasonable doubt. Hart's identification of Stewart was impeached, but it was not so inherently unreliable that [it] lacked probative value entirely. [50] [I]t would take an exceptional case to take such eyewitness testimony about the circumstances of a criminal offense away from the jury, [51] and we do not find this to be such a case. The core of Hart's testimonythat she saw McCraney, Stewart and Gray take guns from the trunk of a brown car with a broken window and temporary tags and walk toward 1600 E Street, and that after hearing several shots she saw the three men run back to the car, stow their weapons in its trunk, and drive off with McCraney at the wheelwas corroborated by substantial independent evidence at trial, including the testimony of Mascall and Bacote and the subsequent finding of the murder weapons in McCraney's car. Of particular import, Mascall testified that it was Stewart who fired a silver 9 mm handgun outside her building on New Year's Eve, and forensic evidence supported the inference (though it did not conclusively prove [52] ) that the same weapon was used to shoot Rosebure the next day. Furthermore, Mascall said the second shooter had a dark-skinned hand. That description fit Stewartand it did not fit Gray, the only other person whom Mascall saw with a 9 mm handgun on New Year's Eve and whom Hart saw in the alley at the time of the shooting. We are satisfied that a rational trier of fact could find Hart's identification of Stewart credible in spite of its weaknesses. Viewing the evidence in its totality, we conclude that the trial judge did not err in denying Stewart's motion for a judgment of acquittal and allowing the case against him to go to the jury.