not be disturbed. Turning to the element of the intent to deliver, the jury was provided evidence, again circumstantial, with respect to Salda-na’s connection with previously convicted drug dealers. Those individuals happened to be his brothers. There also was submitted admissible evidence that the quantity and purity of the cocaine in question was such that it would not be likely a possessor would have acquired it for personal use. Circumstantial evidence, which is “proof of facts and circumstances from which the main fact to be proved reasonably follows according to common experience of mankind,” is sufficient to establish the elements of a crime. Murray v. State, 671 P.2d 320, 328 (Wyo.1983); Russell v. State, 583 P.2d 690 (Wyo.1978). Cf. Jozen v. State, 746 P.2d 1279 (Wyo.1987) (<HOLDING>). As was true with respect to the element of
holding that motive is circumstantial evidence of intent holding that circumstantial evidence was sufficient to show that a method step was carried out by the direct infringer even in the absence of direct evidence for direct infringer holding that such circumstantial evidence may be used to prove discrimination holding that direct and circumstantial evidence are to be given the same weight when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence holding circumstantial evidence has equivalent standing to direct evidence in criminal prosecution