State v. Julie Long, 61 A.3d 439

In Oct. 2008 Long rented 5 Hillside Drive in Exeter for a marijuana grow operation run with Hodzic and Belenkii.
DEA investigated a Canada-based marijuana trafficking network; surveillance and wiretaps linked Hillside Drive to the operation.
February 2009 she directed placement of grow equipment; Belenkii and Hodzic procured supplies and moved them to Hillside Drive.
Plants were cultivated in the basement and a second-floor bedroom; 173 plants, equipment, and other paraphernalia were seized during a June 2009 search.
Long was charged in Feb. 2010 with possession with intent to deliver, manufacturing/cultivating marijuana, plus weapon-related counts later dismissed; she testified she had no involvement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for manufacturing/cultivation	Long contends evidence does not prove production or cultivation by her.	Long argues she did not participate in the grow operation or know of it.	Sufficient evidence supported conviction
Sufficiency of evidence for aiding/abetting	Long denies participation as aider/abettor; insufficient shared intent.	Long asserts no aiding/abetting liability given lack of presence at the grow.	Evidence supported aiding/abetting liability
Properness of aiding and abetting jury instruction	Long claims instruction was improper or confusing.	Long argues the instruction misstates participation theory.	Instruction proper; not reversible error

State v. Davis, 877 A.2d 642 (R.I. 2005) (11-1-3 eliminates principal/aider distinction; participation not element)
State v. Heredia, 10 A.3d 443 (R.I. 2010) (standard for reviewing judgment of acquittal)
State v. Sivo, 925 A.2d 901 (R.I. 2007) (reversal available if jury could have been misled by instructions)
State v. Medeiros, 599 A.2d 723 (R.I. 1991) (trial court must instruct on raised issues)
State v. Ensey, 881 A.2d 81 (R.I. 2005) (standard that jury instructions adequately cover the law)