Sufficiency of the evidence for a possession of meth conviction; MCL 333.7403(2)(b)(i); Prosecutorial error; Questioning of a defense witness; People v Emery; Vouching; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to make a futile objection; Claim that the police & prosecution failed to investigate or produce evidence; People v. Heft; Arizona v Youngblood; Inapplicability of Brady v Maryland analysis

The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s meth possession conviction. It also rejected his prosecutorial error and related ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Finally, as he did not even allege that the police or prosecution acted in bad faith, his due process claim for failing to investigate or produce certain evidence for trial failed. The case arose from the stop of a vehicle in which he was a front-seat passenger. It was driven by another man (M). Two baggies of meth were discovered. The first “was located in a pair of pants on the passenger-side floorboard” and the second was found “in a cigarette-lighter port, also on the passenger side. Defendant’s name was printed on a tag inside the pants’ waistband, which were a size 34 by 32 inches. Notably, officers confirmed that [M] wore size 38 pants.” The court concluded the evidence presented at trial “provided the jury with a reasonable basis for inferring that defendant had control over the contraband found in the pants and cigarette-lighter port. First, there was evidence that [he] was in control of the area where the drugs were found. Although [he] did not own the vehicle, the police observed that he was a front-seat passenger immediately before the vehicle was seized. The drugs were found in areas of the vehicle that a passenger typically occupies, and therefore normally controls: the passenger floorboard and passenger-side area where the cigarette-lighter port was located.” Thus, the jury could “reasonably infer that the contraband found in these areas was known to, and under the control of, defendant. The evidence also suggested that the pants in which the contraband was found belonged to [him], given that, not only were they found at [his] feet, but also, they were two sizes too small for [M], and defendant’s name was printed in the waistband. The inference that the pants belonged to [him] further permitted the jury to reasonably infer that defendant had both knowledge of, and control over the” meth in them. As to his prosecutorial error claims, the court found that the questioning of a defense witness reflected “a good-faith effort to introduce evidence impeaching [her] credibility,” and that the prosecutor did not improperly vouch for a police witness’s credibility. Affirmed.