Robert Maclin appeals from a jury verdict finding him guilty of owning, operating, or conducting a “chop shop.”1 His sole enumeration of error challenges the sufficiency of the evidence against him. Because the evidence was sufficient, we affirm. On appeal, Maclin no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence and we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict.2 We do not weigh the evidence or evaluate witness credibility, but only determine whether the evidence was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.3 So viewed, the evidence shows that Paul Rogowski owned an automobile performance shop specializing in Buick Regal Grand Nationals. On August 23, 2005, Maclin contacted Rogowski and offered to sell him parts from a Grand National. Rogowski viewed the vehicle and observed that it was in “very, very poor condition”: the original tires had been removed, the steering column had been replaced, and multiple parts were missing, including the backseat, the passenger door and trunk locks, molding, fender badges, interior door panels, the gear shift, the radio, and approximately half of the engine. Although Maclin told Rogowski that he did not own the vehicle and did not have any paperwork proving ownership, he offered to sell it to Rogowski for $1,000.
At their initial meeting, Rogowski copied the vehicle identification number “VIN” located on a plate near the windshield. Rogowski ran a check on the VIN and learned that the number was registered to a 1985 Buick Regal. He then arranged to see the vehicle again and found a number on the engine block that did not match the VIN in the windshield. After a check of the engine number showed that it was registered to a stolen vehicle, Rogowski contacted the police.
