Sufficiency of the evidence; Delivery of a controlled substance causing death; MCL 750.317a; People v Dumback; Delivery of less than 50 grams of a controlled substance; MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(iv); People v Dickinson; Double jeopardy; People v Nutt; People v Miller; The abstract legal elements test; People v Ream; Evidence of a witness’s past conviction; MRE 609; Sentencing; Reasonableness & proportionality; People v Lockridge; People v Steanhouse; Restitution under the Crime Victim’s Rights Act (MCL 780.751 et seq); MCL 780.766(2), (4)(f), & (7); MCL 780.767(1); People v Gubachy; People v Orweller

The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s convictions, that there was no double jeopardy violation, and that the trial court did not err by not allowing evidence of a prosecution witness’s prior conviction. It also held that his sentences and the restitution order were appropriate. He was convicted of delivery of a controlled substance causing death, and delivery of less than 50 grams of a controlled substance, arising out of the victim’s heroin overdose. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent terms of 11 to 30 years for the former, and 4 to 10 years for the latter. It also ordered him to pay $12,104.72 in restitution. On appeal, the court rejected defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. “Evidence established that 0.93 grams of heroin and fentanyl were found in the victim’s nightstand after he had died,” and the ME discovered both substances in his body. Thus, the prosecution “presented sufficient evidence to establish that defendant delivered less than 50 grams of a controlled substance to the victim.” There was also sufficient evidence linking “the drugs that were used by and killed the victim with” drugs defendant delivered. The court also rejected his claim that his convictions violated double jeopardy, noting each of his convictions “required an element which the other did not . . . .” It next rejected his contention that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to allow admission of evidence of a prosecution witness’s prior conviction. “The 21-year-old conviction in this instance for an armed robbery fell within the class of theft crimes primarily assaultive and less indicative of veracity. The trial court, therefore, in the exercise of its discretion could exclude such evidence.” As to his sentences, the “record reflects the trial court adequately explained how defendant’s abuse of substances did not weigh in favor of a more lenient sentence here.” And defendant ignored “the many aggravating characteristics of his crime.” Finally, as to the restitution order, the record showed “the trial court considered the testimony and receipts provided” regarding the victim’s funeral expenses “and set restitution at an amount supported by the evidence.” Affirmed.