State v. Mitchell
Idaho Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
LANSING, Judge.
The appellant, Marc Aaron Mitchell, challenges the sufficiency of the trial evidence to support a jury verdict finding him guilty of delivery of a controlled substance. The substance delivered during the transaction in question was not recovered by the police and therefore was not identified by chemical analysis. We hold that circumstantial evidence indicating that the delivered substance was methamphetamine was sufficient to support the verdict, and we therefore affirm the judgment of conviction.
FACTS
The circumstances giving rise to Mitchell’s arrest were described as follows…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Jackson v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- State v. DeckerIdaho Court of Appeals · 1985
- State v. KnutsonIdaho Court of Appeals · 1991
- United States v. Dwayne DolanCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1976
- State v. FilsonIdaho Supreme Court · 1980
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- State v. SeversonIdaho Supreme Court · 2009
- Robinson v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1997
- State v. LDonna Marie YoumansIdaho Court of Appeals · 2016
- State v. Gracie Jean TryonIdaho Supreme Court · 2018
- State v. GneitingIdaho Supreme Court · 2020
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.