Sufficiency of the evidence; Possession of meth (MCL 333.7403(2)(b)); FIP of a gun & ammunition (MCL 750.224f); Waiver of alleged jury instruction error

The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s convictions of meth possession and FIP, and that he waived review of his claim that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the meth possession charge. He was also convicted of resisting or obstructing a police officer and felony-firearm. On appeal he challenged the sufficiency of the evidence as to the meth possession and FIP of a gun and ammunition convictions only. The court concluded that the evidence established his guilt of meth possession beyond a reasonable doubt. He suggested “that what he describes as a ‘trace amount’ of meth[] found on the digital scale cannot sustain his conviction. But” he did not contest an expert’s findings “that the visible residue on the digital scale contained meth[]. Under MCL 333.7214(c)(ii), ‘[a]ny substance which contains any quantity of meth[]’ meets the requirement for a violation of the law.” The court further found that the trial evidence “allowed the jury to reasonably infer that defendant had control over the basement area where the digital scale with meth[] residue was found. During surveillance conducted before the” search warrant was executed, the police observed him “at the house approximately one hour before the search took place. [He] escaped through a basement window in an effort to avoid arrest.” In the basement, “there was a pathway to a small seating and sleeping area. In that area, officers found the digital scale with meth[] residue along with two debit cards and mail bearing defendant’s name.” He also admitted in a police statement that the house was his residence on the date of the search, and did not deny he owned the digital scale. The court concluded that his “challenges, including reliance on the witness whose testimony he presented, do not affect the sufficiency of the evidence.” It noted that the “jurors heard the testimony of the defense witness, and defense counsel presented arguments that relied on the defense witness’s testimony, but the jury nonetheless returned a guilty verdict on the” meth possession charge. It was “entitled to believe or disbelieve the defense witness’s testimony[.]” The court also held that that the evidence “supporting constructive possession of the meth[] residue on a scale in the basement likewise establishes defendant’s constructive possession of the gun and the ammunition in the basement.” Affirmed.