Opinion ID: 169922
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Our review for sufficiency of the evidence “is limited to determining whether a reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the direct and circumstantial evidence, together w ith the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom.” United States v. Chisum, __ F.3d __, 2007 W L 2769647,  (10th Cir. Sept. 25, 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). The record before us contains ample evidence to sustain M r. Brown’s convictions. The evidence showed that after Curley was shot, he and the third suspect were picked up by M r. Brown in a white O ldsmobile Cutlass. The Oldsmobile w as traced to M r. Brown after police determined that his step-father purchased the car for him and saw him with it the day before or the day of the attempted robbery. M oreover, Curley testified that M r. Brown drove the white Oldsmobile to and from the attempted robbery, knew that Curley had a gun, and agreed to dispose of both the car and the gun after the crime was completed. According to Curley, it -3- was M r. Brown’s idea to rob the grocery store to ensure that “he would have something” on Curley because Curley “had never gone in on the previous things that [they] had done.” R. Vol. IV at 279, 281. Curley also testified that M r. Brown entered the grocery store twice just before the attempted robbery to alert them w hen to commit the crime. This testimony was corroborated by M r. Brown’s own admission that he was in the grocery store on the day of the attempted robbery, as well as surveillance video from the store’s security cameras, which recorded him in the store just minutes before Curley and the third suspect entered. Additionally, an inmate who was incarcerated with M r. Brown testified that M r. Brow n told him he w as being prosecuted for robbing the grocery store because the car’s license plate had been seen at the robbery. Further, the inmate reported that someone had been shot inside the grocery store and that M r. Brow n “had to lift him off the sidewalk into the car.” Id. at 212. The inmate testified that the man w ho had been shot was named M ike Curley and that M r. Brown had disposed of the car and the gun. Finally, there was evidence that the gun used by Curley and merchandise sold by the store had traveled in interstate commerce. This evidence, when view ed in the light most favorably to the verdict, demonstrates that it would be frivolous to argue that a reasonable jury could not find M r. B rown guilty of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt. -4-