Opinion ID: 2576455
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Conspiracy to deliver marijuana

Text: [¶ 14] The elements of a conspiracy involving a controlled substance are: (1) at least a tacit understanding between the defendant and a coconspirator to commit an act violative of Wyoming's controlled substances act, and (2) intent by the defendant to commit the elements of the offense which was the object of the understanding. Due to the covert nature of the crime, circumstantial evidence may be relied upon to establish the conspiracy. Gilliam v. State, 890 P.2d 1104, 1108 (Wyo.1995). The amended information in this case alleges that appellant conspired with Steven Nevling and others whose full identities are presently unknown to commit the crime of Delivery of Marijuana. All that is required is that `a participant know of the others' existence and their activities to further the conspiracy.' Marquez v. State, 12 P.3d 711, 716 (Wyo.2000) (citations omitted). [¶ 15] Once again, a review of the evidence presented clearly ties appellant to both Nevling and Alan in a conspiracy to deliver marijuana. Appellant's real argument is that Nevling was not credible because of his plea agreement with the State. However, [w]e have consistently held that even though it is possible to draw other inferences from the evidence presented, it is the responsibility of the jury to resolve conflicts in the evidence. The factfinder in this case, a jurydid that. The jury is entitled to weigh and disregard the evidence intended to discredit the witnesses for the State. Willis, ¶ 15 (quoting Broom v. State, 695 P.2d 640, 642 (Wyo.1985)).