AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was convicted for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine after a search of his vehicle uncovered a large plastic bag with a white crystalline substance under the driver's seat, along with other items indicative of drug use but not necessarily trafficking, such as aluminum foil with burn marks, a pipe, a lighter, a folded dollar bill, and a single small plastic baggie from the front passenger’s seat. A suitcase containing a notebook and suboxone strips was found in the trunk. The Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the State’s evidence to prove his intent to transfer methamphetamine to another.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for trafficking, specifically challenging the State's evidence regarding his intent to distribute methamphetamine. Highlighted the absence of scales or other items typically associated with trafficking found in the car.
• Appellee: Defended the sufficiency of the evidence, emphasizing expert testimony that the quantity of methamphetamine found was more consistent with trafficking than personal use and asserting that intent to distribute could be inferred from the amount possessed.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine.
• Whether the district court committed fundamental error by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of simple possession.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine.

Reasons

• Per Duffy, J. (Hanisee, C.J., and Attrep, J., concurring):
  The Court applied a highly deferential standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence, viewing all evidence in the light most favorable to the State and resolving conflicts and inferences in favor of the jury’s verdict (paras 2-3).
  The Court found sufficient evidence to support the conviction based on the quantity of methamphetamine found in the Defendant's possession, expert testimony regarding the consistency of the amount with trafficking rather than personal use, and the jury instructions on what needed to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (paras 3-6).
  The Court distinguished this case from State v. Becerra, where a conviction for trafficking based solely on the amount of a controlled substance was reversed, by noting the expert testimony in the present case provided a basis for inferring intent to distribute (paras 7).
  Regarding the Defendant's contention that the district court erred by not instructing the jury on the lesser included offense of simple possession, the Court declined to review this issue, citing precedent that errors concerning jury instructions must be preserved by tendering a correct written instruction before the jury is instructed. The Court also noted that decisions on whether to request instructions on lesser included offenses are considered tactical decisions that are not second-guessed on appeal (paras 9-10).