Does a defendant have to prove he intended to sell methamphetamine in order to be successful in both criminal and civil cases?

Defendant also contends the two prosecutions were part of the same continuous course of conduct because evidence of the 2.9 grams of methamphetamine concealed in his rectum offered proof that he was under the influence of a controlled substance at the time of his arrest. However, although the individually wrapped bindles would support a finding that defendant intended to sell the methamphetamine, they did not supply proof defendant was under the influence of a controlled substance. The evidence did not necessarily supply proof of both crimes. (People v. Hurtado (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 633, 636.)