United States v. Scott Michael Patrick , 630 F. App'x 959 ( 2015 )

Case: 13-14492 Date Filed: 11/02/2015 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-14492
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:10-cr-00036-ACC-PRL-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SCOTT MICHAEL PATRICK,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(November 2, 2015)
Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, JORDAN, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 13-14492 Date Filed: 11/02/2015 Page: 2 of 4
Scott Michael Patrick appeals his conviction for assault resulting in serious
bodily injury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(6). The victim, David Moghdam,
was beaten and stabbed by a group of fellow inmates at the Federal Correctional
Complex – Coleman. Patrick concedes that Moghdam suffered a serious bodily
injury during the attack, but he contends that the government did not present
sufficient evidence to prove that he inflicted the serious bodily injury or that the
assault occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
We generally review de novo the sufficiency of the evidence. United States
v. House, 684 F.3d 1173, 1196 (11th Cir. 2012). But “where a defendant
present[s] his case after denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal and then fails
to renew his motion for judgment of acquittal at the end of all of the evidence,” we
review only for a manifest miscarriage of justice. Id. (alteration in original).
Patrick did not renew his motion for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the
defense’s evidence and contrary to his contention, his attempt to reopen the
defense case was no substitute. So we review the sufficiency of the evidence only
for a manifest miscarriage of justice, which occurs where “the evidence on a key
element of the offense is so tenuous that [the] conviction [is] shocking.” Id.
(alterations in original). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the
government and draw all reasonable inferences and credibility determinations in
favor of the jury verdict. Id.
2
Case: 13-14492 Date Filed: 11/02/2015 Page: 3 of 4
Patrick presents a two-part argument challenging the sufficiency of the
evidence that he inflicted a serious bodily injury on Moghdam. He first contends
that he is not responsible for the stab wounds inflicted by another inmate because
he did not have any prior knowledge of a plan to stab Moghdam and the
government did not prove that he aided and abetted the stabbing. His second
contention is that the government did not prove that Moghdam’s non-stabbing
injuries constituted serious bodily injuries.
There is no manifest miscarriage of justice here. It is undisputed that
Michael Thompson stabbed Moghdam during the fight and that the stab wounds
constituted serious bodily injuries. The only question is whether Patrick aided and
abetted Thompson’s stabbing of Moghdam. A defendant aids and abets a crime
where he “(1) associated himself with the crime, (2) intended to bring it about, and
(3) sought by his actions to make it succeed.” United States v. Beale, 921 F.2d
1412, 1430 (11th Cir. 1991). One of the other inmates who attacked Moghdam
testified that Patrick was aware there was a “hit” on Moghdam before the fight, and
that Patrick’s statements after the fight indicated that he knew someone was going
to stab Moghdam. Video recordings viewed by the jury showed Patrick and
Thompson side by side fighting Moghdam while Thompson did the stabbing. The
jury was entitled to disbelieve Patrick’s testimony that he did not know anyone
would stab Moghdam and count his disbelieved testimony as substantive evidence
3
Case: 13-14492 Date Filed: 11/02/2015 Page: 4 of 4
that he did know. See United States v. Brown, 53 F.3d 312, 314 (11th Cir. 1995)
(“[A] statement by a defendant, if disbelieved by the jury, may be considered as
substantive evidence of the defendant’s guilt . . . . [W]e have said that, when a
defendant chooses to testify, he runs the risk that if disbelieved the jury might
conclude the opposite of his testimony is true.”). It was not a miscarriage of justice
for the jury to conclude, based on the evidence, that Patrick did aid and abet
Thompson’s stabbing of Moghdam.
Patrick’s final contention is that the government did not present sufficient
evidence to prove that the FCC – Coleman is located in the territorial jurisdiction
of the United States, as required by § 113(a). At trial, however, the parties entered
the following stipulation: “The parties hereby stipulate and agree that the United
States Federal Correctional Complex at Coleman, in Sumter County, Florida,
which includes the United States Penitentiary I, is in the territorial jurisdiction of
the United States.” See United States v. Ross, 131 F.3d 970, 988 (11th Cir. 1997)
(“It is a cardinal rule of appellate review that a party may not challenge as error a
ruling or other trial proceeding invited by that party.”). That is enough.
AFFIRMED.
4