Mistrial; People v Beck; Tainted jury pool; Juror impartiality; People v Miller; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Trial strategy; Strickland v Washington; Possession with intent to deliver meth; MCL 333.7401(2)(b)(i); Constructive possession; People v Meshell; FIP; MCL 750.224f; Felony-firearm; MCL 750.227b

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant’s motion for a mistrial, that his counsel was not ineffective, and that sufficient evidence supported his drug and firearm convictions. Defendant was convicted after police executed a search warrant at the home he shared with his girlfriend and found meth, firearms, ammunition, cash from a controlled buy, packaging materials, and drug-related items. On appeal, the court first held that a mistrial was not required after a prospective juror said defendant looked like he used meth and appeared guilty, and then another said he believed defendant was guilty. The biased jurors were excused, the trial court questioned the remaining jurors, and they stated they could “set aside outside factors” and decide the case on the evidence and instructions. The court rejected defendant’s implied-bias argument because he failed to show that the remaining jurors’ impartiality was compromised. The court next held that counsel was not ineffective for acknowledging during closing that he “should not have called” a defense witness who was impeached, because counsel reasonably tried to redirect the jury to the useful portion of that witness’s testimony attacking the girlfriend’s credibility. As to sufficiency, the court held that constructive possession of meth was shown because meth was found in areas defendant could access, his girlfriend testified they both sold meth, and defendant was present for portions of the controlled buys. Intent to deliver was supported by about 190 grams of meth divided into multiple bags, scales, packaging materials, and scissors with “white crystal residue.” The court also held that defendant constructively possessed firearms and ammunition because they were located in the bedroom where he was found and were “reasonably accessible.” Affirmed.