Controlled Substances – Attempt to possess – sufficiency of the evidence

Listen to this article

Controlled Substances
Attempt to possess; sufficiency of the evidence

The evidence is sufficient to support a conviction for attempting to possess cocaine with intent to distribute, even though the defendant failed to appear on the day the planned robbery of a drug stash house was to take place.
“We agree with the Government that George’s acts leading up to the day of the robbery were sufficient to support the conviction on an aiding and abetting theory. A rational jury could have found that George aided and abetted Spagnola’s attempt to possess cocaine on the appointed day. Initially, there is no question that George associated with this unlawful venture, so the matter boils down to whether he knowingly participated and actively contributed to its success. We think that the act of recruiting Spagnola into the conspiracy, although it occurred about a month before the day of the attempt, was nevertheless ‘active contribution to the plan’s success.’ So was altering the original plan of the robbery in order to double-cross the drug courier. Moreover, the jury was entitled to believe George’s representations, See, e.g., United 8 States v. Wesson, 889 F.2d 134, 135 (7th Cir. 1989) (‘You may “abet” the crime of possession with intent to distribute by procuring the customers and maintaining the market in which the possession is profitable, even though you do nothing else to help the possessor get or retain possession.’). captured on tape, that he had arranged to dispose of the cocaine.”

Affirmed.

10-1430 & 10-1657 U.S. v. George

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Leinenweber, J., Cudahy, J.

Full Text