State v. Langbehn, 35,680

Defendant was stopped for improper license plate display and a glaring taillamp; officer discovered Defendant’s license was suspended.
Officer indicated the vehicle would be towed; Defendant then told the officer there were packets of “spice” (synthetic cannabinoids) in the car.
An inventory search recovered 174 packets of suspected synthetic marijuana (approximately one pound), which lab/testing showed was synthetic cannabinoids.
After Miranda warnings, Defendant admitted using “spice” but claimed not to know the number of packets and denied distributing.
At trial, Deputy Rodriguez testified the quantity seized was inconsistent with personal use.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of possession with intent to distribute and appealed, arguing insufficiency of the evidence to prove intent to transfer.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to prove intent to distribute	The State argued the amount, packaging, and officer testimony supported intent to distribute	Defendant argued 174 packets could be consistent with personal use and he admitted only to being a user, not a distributor	Affirmed — jury reasonably credited officer testimony that the amount was inconsistent with personal use and found guilt more likely
Admission/weight of officer testimony	The State relied on Deputy Rodriguez’s testimony about typical quantities for personal use	Defendant implied the testimony alone was insufficient to prove intent	Court held testimony was properly before jury (no contemporaneous objection) and it was proper for jury to credit it
Claim of equally reasonable hypotheses (guilt vs innocence)	State argued jury resolves competing inferences	Defendant argued equal hypotheses required acquittal	Court held jury’s verdict settled whose hypothesis was more reasonable; appellate court defers to jury

State v. Hill, 192 P.3d 770 (N.M. Ct. App.) (failing to object below waives challenge to testimony admission)
State v. Salas, 986 P.2d 482 (N.M. Ct. App.) (credibility and weight of witness testimony are for the fact-finder)
State v. Montoya, 114 P.3d 393 (N.M. Ct. App.) (when jury returns guilty verdict it necessarily found the guilt hypothesis more reasonable than innocence)