Was there Sufficient Evidence to Support the Conviction of Conspiracy to Manufacture Methamphetamine?
Denny argues he participated in certain aspects of the manufacturing of methamphetamine, but joint participation in criminal activity, standing alone, is not sufficient to support a finding of an agreement to commit the crime, relying heavily on State v. Harris, 266 Kan. 610, 975 P.2d 227 (1999). In a challenge of this nature, we consider all of the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, and determine whether a rational factfinder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Parker, 282 Kan. 584, 597, 147 P.3d 115 (2006). K.S.A. 2006 Supp. 21-3302(a) provides: “A conspiracy is an agreement with another person to commit a crime or to assist in committing a crime. No person may be convicted of a conspiracy unless an overt act in furtherance of such conspiracy is alleged and proved to have been committed by such person or by a co-conspirator.” The agreement required by the statute need not be express but may be implied from the actions
Related Questions
- How can districts be sure that preschool funding will be sufficient to support the program without placing any additional burden on the rest of the district budget?
- Was the Evidence Sufficient to Support a Termination of Appellants Parental Rights to C.G.?
- I like to support American made products, where does Lieberfarb manufacture its rings?
