This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
State of Minnesota,
Julie K. Miller,
Filed November 14, 2006
Reversed; motion denied
Wabasha County District Court
File No. K2-04-202
Mike Hatch, Attorney General, Manuel J. Cervantes, Assistant Attorney General, 1800 Bremer Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101-2134; and
James C. Nordstrom, Wabasha County Attorney, Wabasha County Courthouse, 625 Jefferson Avenue, Wabasha, MN 55981 (for respondent)
John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Jane E. Rydholm, Special Assistant State Public Defender, 2221 University Avenue Southeast, Suite 425, Minneapolis, MN 55414 (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Minge, Presiding Judge, Lansing, Judge, and Klaphake, Judge.
Appellant Julie K. Miller challenges her conviction for first-degree controlled substance offense, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine. We conclude that even when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the conviction, the record evidence is insufficient to permit the jury to reach a guilty verdict. We therefore reverse appellant’s conviction.
challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this court is “limited to a
painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when
viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit
the jurors to reach their verdict.” State v. Hatfield, 639 N.W.2d 372, 375 (
We give a
conviction based on circumstantial evidence greater scrutiny but give
circumstantial evidence the same weight as direct evidence, so long as it is
consistent with the finding of guilt and inconsistent with any other rational
hypothesis. State v. Walen, 563 N.W.2d 742, 750 (
was convicted of first-degree controlled substance crime, manufacturing
The state relies on the following evidence to support appellant’s conviction: (1) appellant lived in the trailer where deputies found her co-defendant, Dirk Alan Hartwig, manufacturing methamphetamine; (2) after appellant was placed in the squad car, she smelled strongly enough of anhydrous ammonia, so the odor lingered in the squad car; (3) appellant had two “foilies,” aluminum foil with a burnt residue, in her purse; and (4) when asked by deputies, appellant lied about knowing where Hartwig was. Although Hartwig was apparently actively manufacturing methamphetamine at the time, appellant was not in the trailer where Hartwig was apprehended but was stopped elsewhere on the property.
in the overt act of manufacturing is not required in order to sustain a
conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine.
We therefore conclude that there is insufficient evidence to sustain appellant’s conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine and reverse her conviction. In light of our decision here, we deny appellant’s motion to strike a sentence in the state’s brief. Further, we need not address the issues raised in appellant’s pro se brief.
Reversed; motion denied.