Sufficiency of the evidence to support the defendant’s convictions of conspiracy to possess with intent to deliver less than 50 grams of cocaine, keeping or maintaining a drug house, & receiving or concealing stolen property worth at least $1,000 but less than $20,000; People v. Hunter; MCL 333.7405(1)(d); People v. Bartlett; People v. Thompson; People v. Quinn; Witness credibility; People v. McGhee

[Unpublished opinion.] Holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant’s convictions of conspiracy to possess with intent to deliver less than 50 grams of cocaine, maintaining a drug house, and receiving or concealing stolen property worth at least $1,000 but less than $20,000, the court affirmed his convictions. While in jail, defendant told A, who lived with him, “to sell cocaine that he purchased before his incarceration.” He told her “how much cocaine should be in the home, what she should do with it, and what she should do with the proceeds.” At the time of A’s arrest, “officers found her with a digital scale and other drug paraphernalia that was indicative of a delivery operation.” Defendant’s direction to her “clearly showed that he had the specific intent to deliver the cocaine and that he intended to combine with” A to deliver it. The fact that A admitted “that she sold drugs for defendant while he was in jail and that she was arrested with cocaine and a digital scale established that she had the same intent as defendant.” The amount of cocaine recovered was approximately 9.94 grams. Thus, “a rational trier of fact could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant conspired to possess with intent to deliver less than 50 grams of cocaine.” There was also evidence that he “exercised control or management over the house that was used for selling drugs.” Officers recovered “mail in defendant’s room with his name on it,” leading to the inference that he “had some control over the premises.” Also, the evidence showed that he “lived in the home for eight or nine months and he kept his cocaine there.” A testified that he “directed her to sell drugs out of the house. In other words, defendant exercised control or management over the sale of drugs at that house, even after he was incarcerated. Further, there was sufficient evidence on the element of continuity.” Finally, the evidence established that A and defendant went to her brother’s home, and she stood watch while he took a television and two laptops. They took the items back to defendant’s home, and the unchallenged value of the property was $2,150.