Sufficiency of the evidence to support the defendant’s convictions related to manufacturing meth; People v. Gonzalez; People v. Meshell; Witness credibility; People v. Lemmon; People v. Avant; Double jeopardy; Claim that defendant’s conviction of violating MCL 333.7401c(2)(f) violated double jeopardy because it imposed a second punishment for the same offense underlying his convictions for violating MCL 333.7401c(2)(d); People v. Routley; People v. McGee; People v. Parker; The Blockburger v. United States “same elements” test; People v. Smith; Drug test report & expert testimony; MRE 702; People v. Dobek; People v. Yost; Constitutional right to present a defense; People v. Kowalski; Motion to suppress evidence found in defendant’s cell phone; People v. Unger; People v. Tuttle; Riley v. California; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Strickland v. Washington; People v Pickens; Abandoned issue; Mitcham v. Detroit

Concluding that a rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict him of three counts related to manufacturing meth. His primary argument was that the evidence was insufficient because K was not a credible witness. On cross-examination, K conceded that “she changed her story and implicated defendant immediately after pleading guilty pursuant to a plea bargain from the prosecutor’s office.” The jury also heard K testify that “she suffers from and is medicated for mental illness that affects her thought process.” On the other hand, K’s story was at least partially supported by “(1) video surveillance images that show her and defendant purchasing the household ingredients used to make meth, (2) pharmacy record logs indicating that defendant bought pseudoephedrine, and (3) instructions for making meth found on defendant’s phone.” Presumably, the jury found K “to be a credible witness and believed that she was telling the truth at trial.” Thus, both direct and circumstantial evidence supported the verdict. The court also held that, pursuant to Routley, defendant’s convictions under MCL 333.7401c(2)(f) and MCL 333.7401c(2)(d) did not violate double jeopardy principles. Affirmed.