State of Minnesota v. Brandon Allen Linscheid, A16-0470

Defendant Brandon Linscheid was tried and convicted by a jury of (1) second-degree controlled-substance crime (sale) based on alleged conspiracy to sell ≥3 grams of methamphetamine and (2) third-degree controlled-substance crime (sale); the district court later vacated the third-degree conviction and sentenced Linscheid to 78 months for the second-degree conviction.
Two controlled buys in May 2015 were arranged using confidential informant S.B., a high‑school‑aged methamphetamine user and informant; A.M., Linscheid’s girlfriend, also participated and testified under a plea agreement.
May 6–7 transaction: S.B. purchased what he believed was 1.7 grams (teener) from A.M./Linscheid — the actual amount at trial was about 1 gram.
May 27 transaction: S.B. paid $350 for an eight‑ball (3.5 g); A.M. initially said she could obtain it, then said she would ask Linscheid; S.B. never received the full amount of methamphetamine and later was told Linscheid would deliver it in smaller increments.
At trial A.M. and Linscheid both testified (with some inconsistencies) that they intended to keep the $350 and not complete the sale; the jury rejected that version. S.B. admitted to violating informant protocols by ingesting meth with them and later threatening Linscheid with a baseball bat.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency: Was there enough evidence to prove Linscheid conspired to sell ≥3 g of methamphetamine (second‑degree)?	State: Circumstantial evidence (scale, prior sale of 1 g, A.M. soliciting Linscheid for an eight‑ball, $350 paid, Linscheid’s statements about delivering in increments) supports a conspiracy inference.	Linscheid: No direct proof of agreement to sell ≥3 g; testimony from him and A.M. said they intended to keep the money, not sell, creating reasonable doubt.	Affirmed: Viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and applying Silvernail two‑step test, jury could reject exculpatory testimony and infer conspiracy; circumstantial proof sufficient.
Admissibility/corroboration: Was S.B. an accomplice so his testimony required corroboration and could not corroborate other testimony?	State: S.B. was a CI and his testimony could be used; his protocol violations did not make him an accomplice to sale/conspiracy.	Linscheid: S.B.’s ingestion of meth and later threatening behavior made him an accomplice whose testimony cannot be used uncorroborated.	Affirmed: Court held S.B. was not an accomplice because receiving/using drugs does not make one an accomplice to distribution and his threatening conduct opposed defendant’s interests; his testimony could corroborate A.M.

State v. Silvernail, 831 N.W.2d 594 (Minn. 2013) (two‑step test for reviewing circumstantial evidence sufficiency)
State v. Young, 710 N.W.2d 272 (Minn. 2006) (view evidence in light most favorable to verdict for sufficiency review)
State v. Kuhnau, 622 N.W.2d 552 (Minn. 2001) (proof required: knowledge of agreement and intent to commit the object crime)
State v. Pinkerton, 628 N.W.2d 159 (Minn. App. 2001) (conspiracy may be inferred from circumstances; mere association insufficient)
State v. Scanlon, 719 N.W.2d 674 (Minn. 2006) (rejecting far‑fetched alternative hypotheses in circumstantial‑evidence review)
State v. Swyningan, 229 N.W.2d 29 (Minn. 1975) (buyer/receiver is not an accomplice to distributor for purposes of corroboration rule)
State v. Webb, 440 N.W.2d 426 (Minn. 1989) (jury best suited to weigh conflicting testimony)
State v. Jenkins, 411 N.W.2d 504 (Minn. App. 1987) (co‑conspirator acts admissible against each conspirator)
State v. Houle, 257 N.W.2d 320 (Minn. 1977) (accomplice defined as one who could be convicted of same offense)