Opinion ID: 203245
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Insufficiency Claim

Text: Lugo also claims that the evidence against him was insufficient. He contends that the evidence showed only that he was caught at the wrong place at the wrong time  an unlucky passenger in a car with individuals who, minutes ago, happened to rob a bank. Appellant's Br. at 19. Lugo also points to the absence of any eyewitness identification of him. The evidence is sufficient if a rational trier of fact could conclude that Lugo aided and abetted the armed robbery (Count One) and the use and carrying of a firearm in relation to that crime (Count Two). To prove aiding and abetting, the government had to show that Lugo associated himself with the venture, that he participated in it as something that he wished to bring about, and that he sought by his actions to make the venture succeed. Nye & Nissen v. United States, 336 U.S. 613, 619, 69 S.Ct. 766, 93 L.Ed. 919 (1949). In reviewing a sufficiency challenge, we look at the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution and draw all inferences in favor of the verdict. See, e.g., United States v. Maraj, 947 F.2d 520, 523 (1st Cir.1991). The prosecution is entitled to rely, even exclusively, on circumstantial evidence to prove its case, and the proof `need not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, provided the record as a whole supports a conclusion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.' Id. (quoting United States v. Victoria-Peguero, 920 F.2d 77, 86-87 (1st Cir.1990)). In addition, because Lugo's Rule 29 motion before the district court challenged the sufficiency of the evidence only as to Count Two, we review his challenge on appeal as to Count One merely for clear and gross injustice. See, e.g., United States v. Cruzado-Laureano, 404 F.3d 470, 480 (1st Cir.2005). The evidence was more than sufficient for the jury to find Lugo guilty of both offenses charged. Lugo and his two co-defendants were apprehended in the getaway vehicle identified at the scene, after a police chase that commenced within mere minutes of the robbery. When arrested, the three were in possession of the bank's money, along with guns, sunglasses, caps and a black backpack full of cash  all matching the descriptions provided by eyewitnesses at trial. One of the two firearms, ammunition, sunglasses and the black backpack laid at Lugo's feet and a clip of ammunition was in his pocket. This was powerful evidence from which the jury rationally could infer Lugo's participation in the armed robbery, even if such evidence did not exclude the possibility that Lugo was merely present in the car. [T]he government need not disprove every hypothesis of innocence. United States v. Escobar-de Jesús, 187 F.3d 148, 172 (1st Cir.1999). The evidence of Lugo's confession was the second pillar of the government's case and further supported the verdict. Lugo's confessed version of events  that he stood near the bank's front area with a pistol in hand and announced the robbery while co-defendant Sosa grabbed the money  was corroborated by the eyewitness testimony and bank surveillance video presented at trial. Lugo argues that we should discount his confession because Agent Sosa's testimony about it was not reliable. This credibility issue was a matter for cross-examination, see United States v. Lebron Cepeda, 324 F.3d 52, 58 (1st Cir.2003), and on sufficiency review we must assume that the jury resolved it in the government's favor. United States v. Edelkind, 467 F.3d 791, 793 (1st Cir.2006). Overall, the evidence of Lugo's participation in the armed robbery, consisting of very strong circumstantial evidence and a valid confession, was more than sufficient for the jury reasonably to find him guilty of both counts.