What evidence was sufficient to prove methamphetamine was methamphetamine?

That evidence was sufficient to prove the substance was methamphetamine. As explained in People v. Sonleitner (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 364, 369, "the nature of a substance, like any other fact in a criminal case, may be proved by circumstantial evidence." Such circumstantial evidence may include "the expert opinion of the arresting officer" and "the conduct of the defendant indicating consciousness of guilt." (Ibid.) In the present case, the trial court heard the officer's opinion and the officer's testimony about defendant's attempt to deny ownership of the substance and admission it was methamphetamine. Appellant points to no evidence in the record that might have led the trial court to doubt the substance was methamphetamine.