Court Opinion

ID: 9465914
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 00:59:38.386063+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:26.497793
License: Public Domain

HENLEY, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I agree that Smith’s conviction on count III should stand, but I reach that conclusion on the merits of the case.
As Judge Bright’s opinion reflects, the substance which was the subject of count III was never recovered and no chemical analysis of that substance was performed. In arguing that the evidence is insufficient to support conviction, defendant says also that while circumstantial evidence in some instances may be sufficient to support conviction, in this case there simply is not enough and that the government’s key witnesses are not credible; that indeed their testimony contains inconsistencies.
We, of course, view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942).
Without detailing the evidence, it suffices to say that the evidence shows (1) the price paid for the substance, which had the appearance of heroin, was high, (2) the possession and related sale were in clandestine circumstances, (3) there had been previous heroin transactions among the same parties including one earlier on the same day, (4) shortly after the sale defendant undertook to elude a police officer by driving at high speed through a residential neighborhood; (5) the witnesses Dowdy and Neumann identified the substance as heroin.
While it must be conceded that in some respects the testimony of Dowdy and Neu-mann was inconsistent, on the whole the evidence was adequate to convince the jury of the guilt of the defendant beyond a *976reasonable doubt. Cf. United States v. Atkins, 473 F.2d 308 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 931, 93 S.Ct. 2751, 37 L.Ed.2d 160 (1973).
Thus, I would affirm.