Opinion ID: 1591617
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: A. Scope of review. If the jury's verdict is supported by substantial evidence, it is binding on the court. State v. Speicher, 625 N.W.2d 738, 740 (Iowa 2001). Therefore, our review is for correction of errors at law. Id. Evidence is substantial if it could convince a rational jury of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 741. If it only raises suspicion or speculation, it is not substantial. Id. In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider all the evidence in the record, but we view the record in the light most favorable to the State. Id. B. Elements of conspiracy offense. Section 124.401(1) makes it a crime for any person to ... conspire with one or more other persons to manufacture, deliver, or possess with the intent to manufacture or deliver a controlled substance. Iowa Code section 706.1 defines conspiracy as follows: 1. A person commits conspiracy with another if, with the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of a crime which is an aggravated misdemeanor or felony, the person does either of the following: a. Agrees with another that they or one or more of them will engage in conduct constituting the crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit the crime. b. Agrees to aid another in the planning or commission of the crime or of an attempt or solicitation to commit the crime. 2. It is not necessary for the conspirator to know the identity of each and every conspirator. 3. A person shall not be convicted of conspiracy unless it is alleged and proven that at least one conspirator committed an overt act evidencing a design to accomplish the purpose of the conspiracy by criminal means. 4. A person shall not be convicted of conspiracy if the only other person or persons involved in the conspiracy were acting at the behest of or as agents of a law enforcement agency in an investigation of the criminal activity alleged at the time of the formation of the conspiracy. Based on these statutes, the State was obligated to prove that (1) Corsi agreed with one or more persons to manufacture or attempt to manufacture methamphetamine or assist another in planning or committing this crime; (2) Corsi entered into the agreement with the intent to manufacture or promote the manufacture of methamphetamine; (3) one or more of the conspirators committed an overt act in furtherance of the manufacturing of methamphetamine; and (4) at least one of the co-conspirators was not a law enforcement agent or working with law enforcement when the conspiracy began. See Speicher, 625 N.W.2d at 741. The defendant claims the evidence was insufficient to establish the first elementthat Corsi agreed with another to manufacture or attempt to manufacture methamphetamine, or agreed to assist another in planning or committing this offense. He asserts the evidence merely showed he walked in on the manufacturing activities of others. C. Discussion. Since a conspiracy is by nature clandestine, it will often rest upon circumstantial evidence and inferences drawn from that evidence. See State v. Ross, 573 N.W.2d 906, 914 (Iowa 1998) (holding evidence of an agreement may be direct or circumstantial). Thus, [a]n agreement that, because of its purpose or the means contemplated, amounts to a conspiracy need not be formal or express, but may be a tacit understanding; the agreement may be inherent in and inferred from the circumstances, especially declarations, acts, and conduct of the alleged conspirators.  State v. Casady, 597 N.W.2d 801, 805 (Iowa 1999) (emphasis added) (citation omitted). On the other hand, circumstantial evidence that proves mere presence at the scene of the crime or association with those involved in the crime is not sufficient to show an agreement. Speicher, 625 N.W.2d at 742. We will indulge in `[a]ll legitimate inferences arising reasonably and fairly from the evidence' to support a verdict of conspiracy. Casady, 597 N.W.2d at 804-05 (citation omitted). Turning to the record, we find the testimony of multiple police officers that they observed a balding man or a man in a long-sleeved flannel shirt cooking methamphetamine. Although each officer observed different aspects of this individual's appearance, the officers all agreed that the only person removed from the apartment minutes after these observations who matched their combined description was the defendant. In addition, two officers testified that when the occupants were removed from the apartment they recognized Corsi as the individual they had seen actively engaged in the cooking process. The fact that the officers only saw the individual in the apartment for a short period of time or that they did not identify in their individual written reports that the defendant was the man they saw through the window were circumstances the jury was free to consider in determining what weight to give to the officers' testimony. See State v. Grimme, 338 N.W.2d 142, 146 (Iowa 1983) (stating the credibility of the witnesses and weight of the evidence were for the jury to determine). In addition to the officers' testimony was the uncontroverted fact the apartment was not Corsi's residence. His presence in the apartment, cooking methamphetamine, supports an inference that he had permission froman agreement withthe apartment's residents to engage in this illegal activity. The existence of an agreement can also be inferred from the testimony of Douglas Fintel, who lived in the apartment and stated to the police that he knew it was wrong that he let them cook in the apartment, but [due to] his addiction ... he let it happen. Furthermore, the defendant's possession of lithium batteries and coffee filters, both items essential to the manufacturing process, is an additional fact indicating the defendant had agreed to participate in the manufacturing operation. See State v. Weatherly, 679 N.W.2d 13, 18 (Iowa 2004) (rejecting challenge to sufficiency of evidence to prove agreement where the bottom half of a plastic pop bottle containing a coffee filter was found in the defendant's pocket). The defendant points to the testimony of Bruce Fuller who said he went to the apartment that night after having called and received permission from an unidentified person to make methamphetamine there. Prior to Fuller's arrival, Corsi and Cheryl Refshauge, the other resident of the apartment, had gone to a convenience store to buy beer. When they returned, Fuller had already started the manufacturing process. According to Fuller, he acted alone and no one else, including Corsi, assisted him. Fuller also denied that the defendant provided any of the ingredients, asserting that when the police broke in the door Corsi picked up the lithium batteries from the table where Fuller had put them. The defendant argues this evidence proves he simply walked in on the illegal activity and was not involved in any agreement to manufacture methamphetamine. Although the jury could have concluded the defendant was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, they were not required to do so in the face of evidence that Corsi was seen cooking methamphetamine and that he possessed items needed for this process. Moreover, the jury was free to disbelieve Fuller's testimony. See id. (stating jury could have found defendant's exculpatory statement was untrue). Fuller had already pled guilty to conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine and was repeatedly evasive when questioned about the identity of others involved in the conspiracy. The jury could have concluded Fuller's exonerating testimony was motivated by his reluctance to name names. We also reject Corsi's argument that the jury's verdict of guilty on the conspiracy charge was inconsistent with its acquittal on the manufacturing charge. It is possible the jury found a conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, yet concluded no product had been prepared or produced before the process was interrupted by law enforcement. See State v. Royer, 632 N.W.2d 905, 908 (Iowa 2001) (holding in order to be guilty of manufacturing methamphetamine, defendant must produce the proscribed amount of the illegal substance). Moreover, the fact that Corsi may not have been present when the manufacturing process was started does not negate the possibility that he joined in the enterprise upon his return. See 16 Am. Jur.2d Conspiracy § 10, at 206 (1998) (The agreement need not be entered into by all the parties to it at the same time, but may be reached by successive actions evidencing their joining of the conspiracy.). We conclude the evidence is sufficient to support the defendant's conviction on the conspiracy charge. Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying Corsi's post-trial motions.