State v. Vargas, 21 A.3d 347

Providence police conducted a surveillance operation on October 13, 2006 at the Gallup Street and Gordon Avenue intersection after numerous complaints of street-level drug activity.
Detective Sical observed defendant and Mr. Andino engage in a brief conversation, after which Andino returned, approached defendant in a rushed manner, handed him currency, and defendant handed Andino something with clenched hands.
Notably, Det. Sical did not witness the exact item exchanged, but suspected it to be narcotics based on location, secrecy, and his experience in narcotics investigations.
Minutes after the exchange, Andino was arrested with a small bag of crack cocaine; defendant was subsequently arrested as a passenger in a vehicle nearby, with $58.50 on his person and no drugs found on him or in the vehicle.
Andino testified for the defense, claiming he obtained drugs from another source and that defendant did not deliver drugs to him; he acknowledged other criminal convictions.
The trial court denied defendant’s motions for judgment of acquittal and for a new trial; a jury convicted Vargas of delivery of a controlled substance in March 2009.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the evidence legally insufficient due to pyramiding of inferences?	Vargas	Vargas	No; sufficient corroborating inferences support guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Did the trial court misconceive the state's evidence in denying the motion for a new trial?	Vargas	Vargas	No; the court properly evaluated credibility and weight, denying the new trial.

State v. Caruolo, 524 A.2d 575 (R.I. 1987) (circumstantial and direct evidence equally probative; pyramiding allowed if initial inference is not ambiguous)
State v. Simpson, 611 A.2d 1390 (R.I. 1992) (circumstantial evidence sufficient for guilt)
State v. Higham, 865 A.2d 1040 (R.I. 2004) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence on appeal)
State v. Kaba, 798 A.2d 383 (R.I. 2002) (test for judging sufficiency on a motion for acquittal; pyramiding not improper if supported by strong corroboration)
State v. Cerda, 957 A.2d 382 (R.I. 2008) (new-trial standard; juror credibility and weight of evidence examined)
State v. Guerra, 12 A.3d 759 (R.I. 2011) (fourth step in new-trial analysis; verdict against fair preponderance of the evidence standard)
State v. Rivera, 839 A.2d 497 (R.I. 2003) (new-trial standard; substantial justice to be considered)
State v. Banach, 648 A.2d 1363 (R.I. 1994) (deference given to trial court's findings in new-trial review)