PEOPLE OF MI V TROY DALE FUTRELL
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
August 19, 2010
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 291686
Cass Circuit Court
LC No. 08-010366-FH
TROY DALE FUTRELL,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: M. J. KELLY, P.J., and MARKEY and OWENS, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right his jury convictions of operating or maintaining a
laboratory involving methamphetamine, MCL 333.7401c(1), (2)(f), possession of
methamphetamine, MCL 333.7403(2)(b)(i), and maintaining a drug house, MCL 333.7405(d).1
The trial court sentenced defendant as a second habitual offender, see MCL 769.10, to
concurrent prison terms of five to 30 years for operating or maintaining a laboratory involving
methamphetamine and two to 15 years for possession of methamphetamine, with credit for 141
days, and to 141 days in jail for maintaining a drug house, with credit for time served. Because
we conclude that there were no errors warranting relief, we affirm. We have decided this appeal
without oral argument under MCR 7.214(E).
Police officers investigated a tip that Diane Swope had been burned during the
production of methamphetamine at defendant’s residence, and obtained a warrant to search
defendant’s residence. Defendant spoke with the police during the search. A detective indicated
that defendant admitted that he was addicted to cocaine and methamphetamine, and that he had
cocaine on the premises. Defendant stated that a fire had occurred, either locally or in Elkhart,
Indiana, and that a woman named Diane was burned; he denied that he had been involved in
manufacturing methamphetamine when the fire occurred. Defendant displayed burned hands,
and indicated that he had attempted to extinguish the fire.
1
Defendant does not challenge his conviction of possession of less than 25 grams of cocaine,
MCL 333.7403(2)(a)(v).
-1-
The search of defendant’s residence revealed shredded cold medicine boxes, small
ziplock baggies of the size commonly used to package narcotics, coffee filters containing traces
of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine, a large ziplock baggie with the bottom torn in a fashion that
indicated to the police that it had been used in the manufacturing process, rubber gloves, tin foil
folded in a way that indicated that it had been used to smoke methamphetamine, a wire scrubber
known as a Chore Boy, a material commonly used in connection with smoking narcotics, lithium
batteries, and a receipt for Coleman lantern fuel, two components used in the manufacture of
methamphetamine. Residue in two ziplock baggies found at defendant’s residence was
identified as methamphetamine.
Defendant testified that the evening before the police searched his home he went to a
party where Swope was burned by a bonfire. Defendant stated that he sustained burns on his
hands when he assisted Swope. Defendant testified that he admitted to the police that he had
cocaine on the premises, but said he did not recall admitting that he used methamphetamine. He
stated that he and his brother used ziplock baggies to store tied flies. Defendant denied that he
ever shredded cold medicine boxes, and said that he did not know who had used his shredder to
do so. Defendant stated that he used lithium batteries in electronic equipment and used a Chore
Boy to clean his grill.
On appeal, defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence used to convict him. In
reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence question, we view the evidence in a light most favorable
to the prosecution to determine whether a rational trier of fact could conclude that the elements
of the offense were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Bulls, 262 Mich App 618, 623;
687 NW2d 159 (2004). A trier of fact may make reasonable inferences from direct or
circumstantial evidence in the record. People v Vaughn, 186 Mich App 376, 379-380; 465
NW2d 365 (1990).
Defendant was charged with operating or maintaining a laboratory involving
methamphetamine, contrary to MCL 333.7401c(1). That statute reads:
(1) A person shall not do any of the following:
(a) 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 [MCL 333.7401] or a counterfeit substance or
a controlled substance analogue in violation of [MCL 333.7402].
(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 [MCL 333.7401] or a counterfeit substance or
a controlled substance analogue in violation of [MCL 333.7402].
(c) Provide any laboratory equipment to another person knowing or having reason
to know that the other person intends to use that chemical or laboratory equipment
for the purpose of manufacturing a controlled substance in violation of [MCL
333.7401] or a counterfeit substance or a controlled substance analogue in
violation of [MCL 333.7402].
-2-
With regard to his conviction of operating or maintaining a laboratory involving
methamphetamine, defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions
because certain equipment and ingredients needed for the manufacture of methamphetamine,
such as gas generator tubing, ammonium nitrate, anhydrous ammonia, muriatic acid, and
Coleman lantern fuel, were not found at his residence. However, no authority holds that every
piece of equipment and every ingredient necessary to manufacture methamphetamine must be
found in the same location at the same time in order to convict a person of operating or
maintaining a laboratory involving methamphetamine. Various materials and ingredients needed
for the manufacture of methamphetamine were found at defendant’s residence. These included
shredded boxes that had held cold medicines containing pseudoephedrine, a key ingredient in the
manufacture of methamphetamine; coffee filters containing traces of ephedrine or
pseudoephedrine, indicating that the filters had been used in the manufacturing process; a ziplock
baggie torn in a way that indicated that it had been used in the manufacturing process; and
lithium batteries, a part of which is used in the manufacturing process. Defendant did not deny
that these items were found at his residence, but maintained that he did not know how the cold
medicine boxes became shredded, and that the other items were used for legitimate purposes.
Police witnesses testified that it was not common to find all the equipment and ingredients
necessary to manufacture methamphetamine in the same location at the same time, and opined
that a methamphetamine laboratory had existed at defendant’s residence. The evidence that
various pieces of equipment and several ingredients needed to manufacture methamphetamine,
coupled with the testimony given by the police witnesses regarding the manufacturing process,
was sufficient to allow the jury to conclude that, contrary to defendant’s testimony, defendant
operated or maintained a laboratory involving methamphetamine on his property. Vaughn, 186
Mich App at 379-380. The evidence produced at trial was sufficient to support defendant’s
conviction of operating or maintaining a laboratory involving methamphetamine.
Defendant was also charged with possession of methamphetamine, contrary to MCL
333.7403(2)(b)(i). Possession of a controlled substance exists when a defendant has dominion or
control over the substance with knowledge of its possession or character. People v Nunez, 242
Mich App 610, 615; 619 NW2d 550 (2000). Possession of a controlled substance may be actual
or constructive. The critical question is whether the defendant had dominion or control over the
substance. Circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence are
sufficient to prove possession. People v Fetterley, 229 Mich App 511, 515; 583 NW2d 199
(1998).
Sufficient evidence supported defendant’s conviction of possession of methamphetamine.
Two baggies found in defendant’s home contained traces of what a drug analyst for the Michigan
State Police identified as methamphetamine. This evidence, coupled with the evidence that
allowed the jury to find that defendant operated or maintained a laboratory involving
methamphetamine, was sufficient to allow the jury to conclude that defendant possessed
methamphetamine. Nunez, 242 Mich App at 615.
Defendant was also charged with maintaining a drug house, contrary to MCL
333.7405(1)(d), which provides that a person shall “not knowingly keep or maintain a . . .
dwelling, building, . . . or other structure or place, that is frequented by persons using controlled
substances in violation of this article for the purpose of using controlled substances, or that is
used for keeping or selling controlled substances in violation of this article.” Defendant was
-3-
charged under the theory that his residence was used for keeping or selling controlled substances
and there was sufficient evidence to support that theory.
The residence at which defendant was arrested was defendant’s own home. See People v
Bartlett, 231 Mich App 139, 152; 585 NW2d 341 (1998) (stating that a person can be deemed to
keep and maintain a drug house if the person has the ability to exercise control over the house).
A police witness testified that defendant admitted that he was addicted to cocaine and that he had
cocaine on the premises; cocaine was found on the premises. Moreover, the search of
defendant’s residence revealed tin foil folded in a specific manner to facilitate the smoking of
methamphetamine. The evidence that allowed the jury to conclude that defendant operated or
maintained a laboratory involving methamphetamine, along with the evidence that
methamphetamine was found in defendant’s home, was sufficient to allow the jury to conclude
that defendant maintained a drug house used for keeping controlled substances. Id.; Vaughn, 186
Mich App at 379-380.
The evidence produced at trial was sufficient to support the convictions challenged by
defendant.
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Donald S. Owens
-4-
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.