State v. Robert Javier Garcia, Jr., 156 Idaho 352

Garcia was convicted of aiding and abetting delivery of methamphetamine; issue of sufficiency challenged on appeal.
Informant cooperated with police, arranged to buy one-eighth ounce of meth from Vargas-Hurtado; transaction planned for August 25, 2010 in Hailey, Idaho.
Police provided the informant with a recording device, marked money, and surveillance; informant testified Garcia delivered the meth to Hurtado-Delatorre who then delivered it to the informant.
During trial, the informant testified Garcia arrived twice; communications between Hurtado-Delatorre and Garcia occurred off-record from the informant.
After deliberations began, the jury asked to read back the informant’s testimony; the court read only the direct examination, excluding cross-examination, over defense objection.
Garcia moved for acquittal under I.C.R. 29; district court denied; conviction appealed to Idaho Court of Appeals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the evidence sufficient to convict Garcia?	State argues substantial evidence supported delivery by Garcia.	Garcia contends evidence was insufficient to prove delivery by him.	Evidence sufficient; substantial evidence supports conviction.
Was the read-back of stricken hearsay testimony preserved for appeal and lawful?	State maintains any error was non-fundamental and not reversible.	Garcia argues reading back stricken hearsay violated evidentiary rules.	Not preserved for review; not foundational error
Did the district court abuse its discretion by reading back only the direct examination and excluding cross-examination?	State asserts discretion to read back portion as requested by jury; cross-examination not required.	Garcia contends cross-examination should have been read to provide full context and credibility undermining.	Error; biased emphasis without cross-examination; conviction vacated and remanded

State v. Dietrich, 135 Idaho 870 (Ct. App. 2001) (de novo review of sufficiency; substantial evidence standard)
State v. Kopsa, 126 Idaho 512 (Ct. App. 1994) (substantial evidence standard; deference to jury verdict)
State v. Printz, 115 Idaho 566 (Ct. App. 1989) (sufficiency review framework for appeals)
State v. Sheahan, 139 Idaho 267 (Ct. App. 2003) (standards in evaluating sufficiency of evidence)
State v. Severson, 147 Idaho 694 (Ct. App. 2009) (substantial evidence standard; circumstantial evidence viable)
State v. Couch, 103 Idaho 205 (Ct. App. 1982) (read-back discretion; need to avoid prejudice)
State v. Jester, 46 Idaho 561 (1928) (read-back of testimony authority; discretionary but cautions)
State v. Leavitt, 44 Idaho 739 (1927) (early guidance on read-backs and context)
State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209 (2010) (standard for harmless error in evidentiary rulings)
State v. Jackson, 151 Idaho 376 (Ct. App. 2011) (application of evidentiary rules to appellate review)
State v. Miller, 13 A.3d 873 (N.J. 2011) (special considerations for read-back playback procedures)
United States v. Newhoff, 627 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2010) (entire examination preferred to avoid undue emphasis)
United States v. Richard, 504 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2007) (playback context and safeguards against prejudice)