read "V. Martin, 2559 N. 30th St., Phila., Pa. 19132." The postal employee who noticed this package testified that it looked suspicious because the package did not have a "Repaired in Philadelphia BMC" stamp affixed to it, and because packages that are rewrapped by the Rewrap Section are not readdressed by printing on the jiffy bag, but rather by the use of labels which also state that postage has been prepaid.
Ms. Vanessa Martin, who lives at the address written on the jiffy bag, testified that she has been a friend of the defendant for five or six years and that she received the package which was introduced into evidence in the mail on November 13, 1979. She also testified that she never ordered the books from Times Mirror, that she did not know of anyone who had ordered the books for her, and that she did not expect to receive the books in the mail.
On November 13, the defendant and Ms. Martin lived approximately one block from each other.
Mr. Handwerk, the business manager of Times Mirror who is responsible for the maintenance of records concerning the book sales of the company, testified that Times Mirror maintains extensive records of all of its book sales, and that the only way to purchase the set of books in question is through a book club or by direct mail order. In either event Times Mirror would have a record of the sale. Mr. Handwerk stated that there was no record at Times Mirror of a sale to a Vanessa Martin at the address listed on the jiffy bag.
The evidence in the record, when viewed in a light most favorable to the Government, is sufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction. There is no doubt that the defendant addressed the jiffy bag containing the Times Mirror books to Ms. Martin. Ms. Martin testified that she did not order the books and did not know of anyone who had ordered the books for her. She also testified that she was a close friend of the defendant and that her home was about one city block from the defendant's residence.
The defendant worked in the Rewrap Section. The cardboard casing containing the books had been damaged, and the books were found in a jiffy bag of the type used by the Post Office in the Rewrap Section. The jiffy bag containing the books was first observed in a container in the Rewrap Section, and the rewrapping of the package was not in conformity with post office procedures because: (1) there was no stamp on the package that it had been repaired in the Philadelphia Bulk Mail Center; (2) there was no label that postage had been prepaid; and (3) rewrapped packages are supposed to be readdressed by using a label, but the jiffy bag containing the package of books was readdressed by printed handwriting which the defendant admitted was her writing. This circumstantial evidence, and other record evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the Government, was sufficient for the fact finder to reasonably conclude that the package containing the books had been damaged in the mail and had been placed in the Rewrap Section for the purpose of rewrapping, that the defendant placed the package in a jiffy bag while working in the Rewrap Section, and that she addressed the package to her friend, Ms. Martin. This evidence was sufficient for the fact finder to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant: (1) obstructed or retarded; (2) the passage of mail; and (3) did it willfully. These are the elements of the crime. United States v. Fleming, supra.
In challenging the sufficiency of the evidence the defendant presents two arguments. The first argument is that Mr. Handwerk testified that the records of Times Mirror show no sale of books to Vanessa Martin at the address indicated on the jiffy bag, and since the name on the jiffy bag is "V. Martin," there is no evidence that Times Mirror had not made a sale to "V. Martin" at the same address. However, the subpoena duces tecum served on Mr. Handwerk ordered that he produce "any and all records pertaining to Vanessa Martin or V. Martin, 2559 N. 30th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania," and Mr. Handwerk testified (N.T. 40) that the files of Times Mirror were searched and no records were found in connection with the name and address provided in the subpoena duces tecum. This argument is further weakened by the testimony of Ms. Martin, who stated that she never ordered the books from Times Mirror and did not know of anyone who had ordered them for her.
The defendant's second argument is that there was no proof that the defendant did not legally acquire the books from Times Mirror or some other person and then mail these books to Ms. Martin. This argument is based on an alternative interpretation of the circumstantial evidence presented by the Government. As stated by our Third Circuit, the evidence presented in a criminal trial, whether direct or circumstantial,
does not need to be inconsistent with every conclusion save that of guilt if it does establish a case from which the . . . (fact finder) can find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Cooper, 567 F.2d 252, 254 (3d Cir. 1977); United States v. Hamilton, 457 F.2d 95 (3d Cir. 1972).
For the reasons hereinbefore stated, we conclude that the evidence presented by the Government proved all of the elements of the crime and established a case from which the fact finder could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we will enter an order affirming the defendant's judgment of conviction.