A Walton County jury found Amanda Hutchins guilty of violating OCGA § 16-13-30.5 a 2, pertaining to the use or conveyance of certain substances used in the manufacture of controlled substances;1 and OCGA § 16-5-73 b 1, pertaining to the presence of children during the manufacture of methamphetamine.2 Hutchins appeals from the denial of her motion for a new trial, contending that her trial counsel was ineffective, that the trial court erred in giving certain jury instructions, and that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the judgments of conviction.
1. Hutchins contends that the State’s evidence on the issue of her guilt for the crimes charged was circumstantial and was insufficient to support her convictions beyond a reasonable doubt. When a criminal defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his or her conviction, “the relevant question 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.” Citation omitted; emphasis in original. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307, 319 III B 99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560 1979. It is the duty of the jury, not this Court, to resolve conflicts in the testimony, weigh the evidence, and draw reasonable inferences from the evidence. Id. “As long as there is some competent evidence, even though contradicted, to support each fact necessary to make out the State’s case, the jury’s verdict will be upheld.” Citation and punctuation omitted. Miller v. State, 273 Ga. 831, 832 546 SE2d 524 2001.