State v. E. Ramirez

Summary

The court affirmed Ramirez’s convictions for possessing fentanyl and methamphetamine with intent to distribute. It held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to give a mere-presence instruction because the instructions as a whole covered his defense and required proof of knowing possession and intent, and by declining to give a witness-accountability instruction because the evidence did not establish that the testifying witness was an accomplice and Ramirez maintained he was innocent. There were no separate opinions.