Opinion ID: 716401
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Azzo

Text: 10 Azzo argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly participated in the conspiracy. See Bautista-Avila, 6 F.3d at 1362 (knowledge required for drug conspiracies). Azzo's argument focuses on the evidence introduced by the government that he saw and/or received the buy money and that the package in his possession contained cocaine. Azzo argues that the government's evidence was insufficient to show that he knew he was receiving money and that he knew he was delivering cocaine. He notes that some of the evidence introduced at the trial was not incriminatory toward him. 11 Azzo's argument misses the point for two reasons. First, there is testimony that, if believed, is sufficient to support the conviction. Prosecution witness Robert Franchi testified that Azzo was present when Franchi showed the money to Tarek Halabi and to Charlie Tana at a restaurant. Franchi testified that Halabi was going to give the money to Azzo. Franchi testified that Azzo left the restaurant and later returned, showed him cocaine, and returned $4,500 to him because the amount purchased was less than expected. Franchi also testified that Azzo asked about receiving additional money for his work. Based on the record before this Court, the evidence was sufficient. 1 See, Bautista-Avila, 6 F.3d at 1362, quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 500 (1979). 12 Second, the government's evidence need not exclude all reasonable exculpatory theories. Thus, the fact that some evidence did not necessarily point toward guilt does not require a reversal. As this Court has noted in the past, the government's evidence need not exclude every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence. United States v. Miller, 688 F.2d 652, 663 (9th Cir.1982). 13