Sufficient evidence for a delivery of meth conviction; Witness credibility; People v Knepper; Confidential informant (CI)

Rejecting defendant’s challenge to a CI witness’s credibility, the court held that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s delivery of meth conviction. He asserted “the CI was not a credible witness because he had a history of drug abuse and ‘buying his way out of convictions by selling testimony.’ Defendant also points out that the CI committed a felony assault while working as a CI in 2009. The CI’s history was no secret at trial, and defense counsel was permitted to cross-examine the CI regarding his history of drug addiction, his time as a [CI], and his assault conviction. The CI’s testimony concerning the controlled buy was not patently incredible, i.e., it did not contradict indisputable physical facts and was not inherently implausible.” The court added that the CI’s “testimony was not directly contradicted by any other witness’s testimony or other evidence, nor was it seriously impeached in a case marked by uncertainties and discrepancies.” To the contrary, his “testimony was supported by the testimony of police witnesses, audio recordings, and physical evidence.” While defendant argued the CI was inherently untrustworthy, he did not provide the court “with any reason to doubt the CI’s testimony other than the CI’s poor character.” It concluded that he failed to clear “the ‘high bar’ that a defendant must clear to obtain relief based on a witness’s credibility.” Affirmed but remanded for the ministerial task of correcting the judgment of sentence.