PEOPLE OF MI V JAMES GREGORY OWENS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
April 23, 2009
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 282548
Cass Circuit Court
LC No. 07-010088-FH
JAMES GREGORY OWENS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Saad, C.J., and Jansen and Hoekstra, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals his jury trial convictions of operating or maintaining a
methamphetamine laboratory, MCL 333.7401c(1)(a), and possessing chemical or laboratory
equipment to manufacture methamphetamine, MCL 333.7401c(1)(b). For the reasons set forth
below, we affirm.
Defendant argues that the prosecutor presented insufficient evidence to support his
convictions.1 MCL 333.7401c(1)(a) provides that a person shall not “own, possess, or use a
vehicle, building, structure, place, or area that he or she knows or has reason to know is to be
used as a location to manufacture a controlled substance in violation of section 7401.”
“Manufacture” is defined as “the production, preparation, propagation, compounding, conversion
or processing of a controlled substance, directly or indirectly by extraction” or “chemical
synthesis.” MCL 333.7401c(7)(c). Methamphetamine is listed as a schedule two controlled
substance under MCL 333.7214(c)(ii).
The evidence presented at trial showed that defendant possessed or used the motel room.
Indeed, numerous witnesses testified that defendant lived in the room with his girlfriend and her
daughter. Further, the jury could reasonably infer from the evidence that defendant knew or had
reason to know that the room “[was] to be used as a location to manufacture” methamphetamine.
1
When reviewing a claim based on the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in the
light most favorable to the prosecution. People v Wolfe, 440 Mich 508, 513-516; 489 NW2d 748
(1992), amended 441 Mich 1201 (1992). We will not interfere with the jury’s role of
determining the weight of the evidence or the credibility of witnesses. People v Avant, 235 Mich
App 499, 506; 597 NW2d 864 (1999).
-1-
MCL 333.7401c(1)(a). “Circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences arising from that
evidence can constitute satisfactory proof of the elements of a crime.” People v Lee, 243 Mich
App 163, 167-168; 622 NW2d 71 (2000). Evidence showed that police found all components
necessary to make methamphetamine in the motel room. Moreover, the presence of used coffee
filters containing pseudoephedrine residue as well as partial containers of sulfuric acid, lye, and
Coleman fuel constituted circumstantial evidence that many of the items were already used to
produce methamphetamine. Police also found intact pseudoephedrine pills, unused lithium
batteries, and dimethylsulfonemethane, along with numerous other items and pieces of
equipment that suggests that someone intended to produce another batch of methamphetamine in
the room.
Defendant admitted to Trooper John Moore that all of the incriminating items needed for
methamphetamine production found in the motel room belonged to him. Furthermore, at trial,
defendant and his girlfriend testified that the items belonged to defendant and that defendant
used them. Although defendant testified that he used each of the items found in the room for
their legal, legitimate purposes, the prosecution’s witnesses testified that the fact that all the
items were found together indicated that methamphetamine production occurred in the motel
room. Avant, supra (“[q]uestions of credibility are left to the trier of fact and will not be
resolved anew by this Court”). Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, this
evidence was sufficient to prove that defendant knew or had reason to know that the motel room
was to be used to manufacture methamphetamine.
Contrary to defendant’s assertion, the fact that no methamphetamine was found in the
room is not dispositive. The statute does not require the prosecution to prove that police found
methamphetamine and Lieutenant Dale Hinz testified that it is very common in small,
clandestine laboratories for the producer to use all of the methamphetamine as soon as it is
produced.
The evidence was also sufficient to convict defendant of possessing chemical or
laboratory equipment to manufacture methamphetamine. MCL 333.7401c(1)(b) provides:
(1) A person shall not do any of the following:
(b) Own or possess any chemical or any laboratory equipment that he or she
knows or has reason to know is to be used for the purpose of manufacturing a
controlled substance in violation of section 7401 . . . .
The statute does not require that the police find “specialized” equipment or equipment that may
only be used for the production of a controlled substance. Instead, “ ‘[l]aboratory equipment’ ”
means any equipment, device, or container used or intended to be used in the process of
manufacturing a controlled substance, counterfeit substance, or controlled substance analogue.”
MCL 333.7401c(7)(b).
Lieutenant Hinz and Officer Antwan Bell both testified that the equipment found in
defendant’s motel room is used in the process of manufacturing methamphetamine. As
discussed, defendant lived in the room where the equipment was found and, by his own
admission, all of the equipment necessary for the production of methamphetamine belonged to
him, including the coffee grinder and soda bottle cap with a hole pierced in it. Further, partially
-2-
used containers of chemicals suggested that defendant had already manufactured some
methamphetamine at the site, and intact batteries, recently purchased pseudoephedrine capsules,
and pseudoephedrine residue in the coffee grinder indicated that defendant planned to
manufacture more.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the prosecution
proved that defendant owned or possessed chemical or laboratory equipment to manufacture
methamphetamine.
Affirmed.
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
-3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.