Opinion ID: 2207428
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Rodriguez's final argument is that there was insufficient evidence presented by the State to support the guilty verdict. The standard of review which this Court utilizes in cases challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction is well settled: We do not weigh or resolve conflicts in the evidence, nor do we judge the credibility of witnesses; those matters are for the trier of fact. We look only to the evidence most favorable to the verdict and the reasonable inferences therefrom to determine if there is substantial evidence to warrant a conviction. State v. Haugen, 448 N.W.2d 191, 196-97 (N.D. 1989). Accord State v. Olson, 372 N.W.2d 901 (N.D.1985); State v. Hartsoch, 329 N.W.2d 367 (N.D.1983). In the instant case, all the elements of the crime of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver were established by the State's evidence. To summarize, the State entered into evidence police testimony concerning the investigative stop of the El Camino, the arrest of Rodriguez, and the subsequent inventory search of the vehicle which revealed a partially torn envelope containing one ounce of cocaine. The testimony indicated that the envelope bore the name Carmen and the Horace zip code of 58047. Moreover, there was testimony that Rodriguez informed the officers of his current address in Horace during the investigative stop. Margarita Alonzo Rodriguez testified that the El Camino had been sold to Carmen Rodriguez and that she no longer owned the vehicle. Finally, there was police testimony indicating one ounce of cocaine is a quantity which is larger than that intended for personal use, and that Rodriguez was arrested with $2,388 in his possession. Reviewing the evidence presented in a light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that there was substantial evidence to demonstrate that Rodriguez was in possession of the seized cocaine, and that he possessed it with an intent to deliver. The judgment of conviction of the district court is affirmed. ERICKSTAD, C.J., and LEVINE, MESCHKE and GIERKE, JJ., concur.