Opinion ID: 1904281
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: We also reject Armstrong's remaining argument that the jury heard insufficient evidence to support its verdict that he acted as an accomplice to unlawful trafficking in scheduled drugs. On appeal, a jury verdict must stand against a claim of insufficiency of the evidence unless on the evidence before it the jury could not rationally have reached its conclusion. See State v. Ruprecht, 458 A.2d 418, 419 (Me.1983). While mere presence at the scene of a crime is inadequate to prove a defendant acted as an accomplice, we have held that ... any conduct promoting or facilitating, however slightly, the commission of the crime will be sufficient for the State to prove its case on accomplice liability. State v. Libby, 435 A.2d 1075, 1077 (Me. 1981). Upon careful review of the entire record, we are satisfied that the evidence was clearly sufficient to support the verdict of the jury. The entry is: Judgment vacated. Case remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion herein. All concurring.