Knowledge does not equal intent. See State v. Wiley, 672 So.2d 185, 187-88 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1996). In fact, LaCaze's statements were consistent with her defense at trial that Michael LaCaze requested that Robinson kill him, which she admitted she knew.
Writ den. 558 So.2d 568 (La. 1990). In State v. Wiley, 95-396 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/20/96), 672 So.2d 185, also cited by the defendant in this case, the defendant and the codefendant were both fifteen-year-old runaways. They stopped at the victims' house to use the telephone and get some water.
When the issue of sufficiency of evidence is raised on appeal, the critical inquiry of the reviewing court is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Wiley, 95-396 (La. App. 3 Cir. 3/20/96); 672 So.2d 185. An appellate court, in reviewing the sufficiency of evidence, must resolve any conflict in the circumstantial or direct evidence by viewing that evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution.