United States v. Casto - 889 F.2d 562 (5th Cir. 1989)

Rule:

An appellate court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and will affirm if substantial evidence supports the verdict, that is, if a reasonable jury could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Facts:

In January 1988, Melinda Gutierrez asked defendant Diana Casto to accompany her to a drug deal. Gutierrez promised defendant a small amount of methamphetamine if she agreed. Defendant consented. In March 1988, Gutierrez asked defendant to attend another drug sale, this time, promising defendant with both cash and methamphetamine for her presence at the meeting. Defendant agreed. Defendant, Gutierrez, and another co-conspirator were later arrested. Defendant was tried and convicted on one count of conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with intent to distribute and on two counts of aiding and abetting the unlawful distribution of methamphetamine. Defendant appealed, arguing that the government failed to adduce evidence sufficient to support her conviction on either the conspiracy or aiding and abetting charges. Moreover, the defendant contended that the instruction on conspiracy given to the jury did not adequately delineate the elements of the crime, and that the trial judge incorrectly refused to give defendant’s proposed instruction, i.e., that the conspirator, in order to be held guilty of conspiracy itself, must have committed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. 

Issue:

1. Did the government fail to adduce evidence sufficient to support defendant’s conviction on either the conspiracy or aiding and abetting charges? 
2. Did the trial judge incorrectly refuse to give defendant’s proposed instruction, i.e., that the conspirator, in order to be held guilty of conspiracy itself, must have committed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy? 

Answer:

1) No. 2) No.

Conclusion:

The court noted that in order to obtain a conviction of conspiracy, the government must show beyond reasonable doubt the existence of an agreement between two or more persons to violate the narcotics laws, and that each conspirator knew of, intended to join and participated in the conspiracy. In this case, the court held that Gutierrez called defendant on two separate occasions to invite her participation in “deals.” These invitations were not innocent in themselves, because they included Gutierrez's offer to give defendant methamphetamine and cash if she would attend the meetings. According to the court, the jury was given sufficient facts on which to base a reasonable belief that defendant knew the purpose of the meetings was the sale of methamphetamine, that defendant entered freely into the conspiracy by adding her presence to the meetings, vouching for the quality of the drugs, and carrying a dangerous weapon to safeguard the criminal transaction. As regards the defendant’s conviction for aiding and abetting, the court noted that the government must prove that the defendant associated with a criminal venture, participated in the venture, and sought by his action to make the venture succeed. The court held that the evidence that enabled the jury to reasonably find defendant guilty of conspiracy also enabled it to find her guilty of aiding and abetting in the drug distribution. Defendant’s criminal intent, association with, and participation in the venture was shown by her indication to the undercover officers of the quality of the methamphetamine, by her presence at a second "deal" of the same type, and by her control of the nine-millimeter pistol during the final attempted sale. Anent the second issue, the court held that the trial court did not err in failing to present defendant's proposed conspiracy instruction to the jury because the instruction misstated the law by requiring an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.