When will a drug expert's conclusion that possession to furnish or sell methamphetamine be considered substantial evidence to support the verdict?

We agree with appellant that the expert's ultimate conclusion is not substantial evidence to support the verdict because he testified the circumstances suggested possession to furnish the methamphetamine or to sell it. We also agree with appellant that the record does not reflect an unambiguous admission from appellant that he intended to exchange the methamphetamine for information, in contrast to an expectancy that users might divulge information while high. However, the trial court could also rely on the "circumstantial evidence" in finding appellant had intent to sell. (People v. Harris, supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at p. 374.) In particular, appellant possessed over 10 grams of methamphetamine; the prosecution's drug expert testified that amount would take a heavy user over 10 days to consume and finding even one gram on a user would be unusual. Indeed, appellant admitted to Officer Elledge that the methamphetamine was not all for personal use. Contrary to appellant's apparent belief, the trial court was not obligated to believe appellant's story that he intended to give away half of the drugs with the hope of obtaining information. That tale was inherently incredible, considering the

Page 5