FILED
FEBRUARY 14, 2017
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
STATE OF WASHINGTON, )
) No. 33700-6-111
Respondent, )
)
V. )
)
TIM GARLAND KENDALL, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
Appellant. )
KORSMO, J. - Timothy Kendall challenges his conviction for delivery of
methamphetamine, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's
verdict. Properly viewed, the evidence permitted the jury to find each element of the
offense and, therefore, was sufficient. The conviction is affirmed.
In light of the challenge presented, we need not discuss the procedural history of
the case at any length. The essence of the charge was that Mr. Kendall, 61, shared
methamphetamine with 22-year-old A.I. during a trip. The information came to light
when A.I. went to a hospital to be examined for a sexual assault. Kendall was charged
with third degree rape of A.I. and delivery of methamphetamine. The jury acquitted on
the rape charge, but convicted on the delivery count.
Well settled standards govern our review of this issue. Whether or not sufficient
evidence has been produced to support a criminal conviction presents a question of law
No. 33700-6-111
State v. Kendall
under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 317-319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d
560 (1979). Specifically, Jackson stated the test for evidentiary sufficiency under the
federal constitution to be "whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable
to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the
crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. at 319. Washington follows the Jackson standard.
State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d 216, 221-222, 616 P.2d 628 (1980) (plurality opinion); id. at
235 (Utter, C.J., concurring).
The elements of the delivery offense are that the defendant knowingly delivered a
controlled substance. RCW 69.50.401(1); State v. Boyer, 91 Wn.2d 342, 344, 588 P.2d
1151 ( 1979). Accordingly, the question here is whether the jury could have determined,
as it did, that Mr. Kendall knowingly delivered a controlled substance, methamphetamine.
The sole issue on appeal is whether the State established that methamphetamine was
delivered. Mr. Kendall's identity and his knowledge of the substance's identity are not
contested.
Ample evidence supported the jury's determination. A.I. testified that she was an
experienced methamphetamine user and that the two of them had shared
methamphetamine supplied by Mr. Kendall during the trip. She slept much of the day of
the trip and did testify that some of the time she was uncertain what the two had smoked,
but those uncertainties were questions of weight for the jury to consider along with her
2
No. 33700-6-111
State v. Kendall
statements that the two had used meth. More to the point, Mr. Kendall also admitted that
the two had shared methamphetamine, a substance he, too, had prior experience with. In
addition, testing showed that A.I. had no methamphetamine in her blood, but that her
urine did show methamphetamine usage. Expert testimony informed the jury that
methamphetamine leaves the blood stream after 15 hours, while it stays longer in the
urinary system.
In short: both defendant and A.I. agreed that they smoked methamphetamine, A.I.
testified that the defendant supplied it, and urine testing confirmed that she had used
methamphetamine. This testimony could be believed by the jury and confirmed the
elements of the offense: Mr. Kendall knowingly delivered methamphetamine to A.I. The
f
evidence, therefore, was sufficient.
Affirmed.
I
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the II
Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW I!
I
1
2.06.040. I
I
l
WE CONCUR:
I
Pennell, J.
3
State of Washington v. Tim Garland Kendall
Combined Opinion