Can a defendant argue that marijuana and methamphetamine, packaged separately, were intended for separate buyers?

Defendant argues that "the idea that marijuana and methamphetamine, if packaged separately or found in different parts of the vehicle, supports an inference that the drugs were intended for separate buyers, lacks any and all logical force." We disagree. While these facts may not compel the inference drawn by the trial court, they are sufficient to support the trial court's finding. (People v. Monarrez (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 710, 715 ["the objectives of selling cocaine and heroin are separate"].)

2. Admission of police reports