State of Washington v. Tim Garland Kendall, 33700-6

Timothy Kendall (61) was charged with delivery of methamphetamine and third-degree rape of A.I. (22) after a trip during which they used drugs; jury acquitted on rape but convicted for delivery.
A.I. reported the incident when she sought a hospital exam for an alleged sexual assault; her account and hospital testing informed the investigation.
A.I. testified she and Kendall shared methamphetamine and that Kendall supplied it, though she had periods of uncertainty while high.
Kendall admitted they shared methamphetamine and had prior experience with the drug; his identity and knowledge of the substance were not contested.
Toxicology: A.I.’s blood had no methamphetamine, but her urine tested positive; expert testimony explained methamphetamine clears blood within about 15 hours but remains longer in urine.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was evidence sufficient to prove Kendall knowingly delivered methamphetamine?	The State: A.I.'s testimony, Kendall's admission, and positive urine test establish delivery beyond a reasonable doubt.	Kendall: Evidence insufficient to prove delivery because of A.I.'s uncertainty and lack of meth in blood.	Yes. Viewing evidence favorably to the State, a rational jury could find Kendall knowingly delivered methamphetamine.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes the standard for evidentiary sufficiency under the Due Process Clause)
State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d 216 (Washington follows the Jackson sufficiency standard)
State v. Boyer, 91 Wn.2d 342 (elements of delivery offense require knowing delivery of a controlled substance)