## Facts

- A confidential informant told the Kansas Bureau of Investigation (KBI) that David Garcia was a drug dealer and that the informant had recently bought drugs from him.
- The informant said that if Garcia did not answer his phone, the informant would contact Garcia’s girlfriend, Mickashell Knapp, to arrange a purchase.
- KBI investigated and determined where Garcia lived or was associated with a residence.
- KBI planned to set up a drug transaction by phone and then execute a search warrant without completing an actual purchase.
- Using a KBI phone, the informant called and spoke with Knapp and arranged to buy methamphetamine and cocaine later that evening.
- KBI obtained a search warrant for the residence and began surveillance.
- When Garcia and Knapp arrived at the residence, officers executed the warrant.
- Inside, officers found drugs and drug-related items, including distribution-related quantities of methamphetamine and cocaine and paraphernalia such as a digital scale with drug residue.
- Officers also found a pill bottle bearing Garcia’s name that contained a substance testing positive for methamphetamine and cocaine.
- Kansas charged Garcia with multiple drug crimes, including possession with intent to distribute and conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and cocaine within 1,000 feet of school property, along with other drug-related offenses.
- At trial, Knapp testified in a manner that tended to minimize Garcia’s connection to the residence and the drugs and acknowledged lying to police in earlier statements.
- The jury convicted Garcia of multiple offenses (but not unlawful use of a communication facility).
- Garcia appealed to the Kansas Court of Appeals, arguing (among other claims) that the evidence was insufficient to support his conspiracy-to-distribute convictions.

## Issues

1. Whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Garcia conspired with Knapp to distribute methamphetamine and cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school.

## Decision

- The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient to support Garcia’s conspiracy-to-distribute convictions.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate review of sufficiency of the evidence asks whether, after viewing all evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational factfinder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
- A criminal conspiracy requires proof of an agreement to commit the crime and an intent to further its objective; the agreement need not be proved by direct evidence.
- An agreement and intent to participate in drug distribution may be shown through circumstantial evidence, including coordinated actions, participation in arrangements for a sale, and the presence of distribution quantities of drugs and tools of the trade.
- Mere association or presence alone is not enough to prove conspiracy, but presence combined with other evidence connecting a defendant to the planned distribution can support a finding of participation.
- The jury determines witness credibility and the weight of testimony; an appellate court does not reweigh evidence or resolve conflicts in testimony on appeal.

## Conclusion

In *State v. Garcia*, 376 P.3d 94 (2016), the Kansas Court of Appeals upheld Garcia’s conspiracy-to-distribute convictions where the State presented evidence that a confidential informant arranged a methamphetamine and cocaine purchase through Garcia’s girlfriend, Garcia arrived with her at the targeted residence shortly before the planned transaction, and officers found distribution-related drugs and paraphernalia inside, including a pill bottle in Garcia’s name; applying the deferential sufficiency standard, the court ruled a rational jury could find the required agreement and intent and therefore affirmed the convictions.


State v. Garcia, 376 P.3d 94 (2016)