Does the fact that Weizoerick and Ahlo opined the drugs were possessed for sale rather than personal use, rather than possession, are sufficient evidence to convict a defendant of a drug offence?

Leaving aside the issue of knowledge, the fact Weizoerick and Ahlo opined the drugs were possessed for sale rather than personal use is not conclusive on defendant's intent. In People v. Goodall (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 129, relied on by defendant, one of the defendants, prosecuted for various offenses related to manufacture of PCP, argued the trial court had abused its discretion in admitting into evidence prior drug-related offenses involving her. Goodall disagreed, stating, "To prove [the defendant] guilty of the charged crimes, the prosecution had to establish her guilty knowledge and intent. [The defendant] had told the police essentially that she was just a bystander, that she would not recognize PCP, and that although she was in the residence and smelled something funny, she did not know what was going on. The prior incidents were therefore relevant; they were not cumulative; and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that their probative value outweighed their prejudicial effect. [Citations.]" (Id. at p. 142.)