Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of being an inmate in possession of a controlled substance, MCL 800.281(4); MSA 28.1621(4). Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty of being an habitual offender, third offense, MCL 769.11; MSA 28.1083. After vacating the sentence for the underlying possеssion charge, the *34 court sentenced defendant to two to ten years for the habitual offender conviction, which sentence runs consecutively to the term defendant was serving when he committed the offense. This Court granted the defеndant’s application for delayed appeal. We affirm.
Defendant is incarcerated at the Muskegon Correctional Facility. On December 3, 1987, Sergeant David Bultema, a corrections officer, was patrolling the unit when hе came upon, and looked into, defendant’s room. He saw defendant on the bed with his arms extended behind the desk. Bultema opened the door to defendant’s room, whereupon defendant jumped up, cupped something in his hand, and attempted to get past him. Defendant was unable to get past Bultema and the officer saw defendant turn to the window, open the screen, and toss something out the window. When defendant realized that Bultema was able to see blood оn the floor, defendant attempted to wipe up the blood with notebook paper. Defendant threw the notebook paper into the garbage, went to the desk, and removed a small white package that was conсealed under a towel. Defendant then swallowed the package.
Bultema searched defendant but was unable to find any incriminating evidence. Bultema then left defendant’s room and went outside defendant’s window, where another cоrrections officer was searching the area to find the object that defendant had discarded. In the snow-covered yard, Bultema found a syringe that had blood on the needle. The officers concluded that the syringe had not been there long because there were no footprints in the snow and the syringe was relatively clean. Bultema returned to defendant’s room, where he found a cap to the syringe inside defendant’s desk.
*35 Laboratory tests were conducted on the syringe and the notebook paper retrieved from defendant’s garbage. The laboratory analyst testified that because of the minute portions of material to test, he conducted tests on an extract from the paрer and a rinse from the syringe. The tests revealed the presence of a substance on both the rinse and the extract. Further testing revealed that there was cocaine present on both materials. The amount of cocаine found, however, was so minute that it could not be weighed and was invisible to the naked eye. On the basis of this evidence, defendant was convicted as charged.
On appeal, defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the possession conviction because the prosecution failed to establish that he knowingly possessed the cocaine. We disagree.
In determining whether the prosecution has presented sufficient evidence tо sustain a conviction, this Court must apply the standard adopted in
People v Hampton,
In this case, defendant was charged with being an inmate in possession of a controlled substance. The intent of the statute is to keep contraband out of the state’s prison facilities.
People v Krajenka,
In this case, viewing the evidence and all factual conflicts in a light most favorable to the prosecution, we are constrained to reject defendant’s contention that there was insufficient evidence of possession. Defendant claims that because he was incarcerated in a dormitory setting, any one of the other inmates might well hаve possessed the cocaine. His argument ignores the facts of the case. Construing the facts in favor of the prosecution, defendant was in his room and was engaged in activity that clearly indicated he was using an illegal substance. In an effort to conceal the activity, defendant threw a syringe out his window and swallowed what appeared to be a package of cocaine. There was a clear link between the cocaine found on the syringe and defendant because there was blood on the syringe and on the floor of defendant’s room. Moreover, the cap to the syringe upon which the cocaine was discovered'was found in defendant’s desk. Finally, Bultema and the other officer actually witnessed defendant wipe up the blood on his floor with a piece of notebook paper that was later found to have traces of cocaine on it. In view of these facts, we are persuaded that there was sufficient evidence to connect the cocaine to defendant.
Defendant also argues that there was insuffi
*37
cient evidence to convict him of the possession offense, as a matter of law, because of the minuscule amount of cocaine that was discovered. In support of his argument, defendant relies upon this Court’s decision in
People v Hunten,
Defendant’s contention that
Hunten
precludes conviction in all cases where there is a minute quantity of contraband discovered ignores the qualifying language within the
Hunten
opinion and the case law from which
Hunten
emanated. This Court specifically stated in
Hunten
that "[o]ther facts and cirсumstances might be established from which criminal scienter may be inferred.”
Id.
The
Hunten
decision grew out of an earlier decision by our Supreme Court in which the Court held that where a defendant is found in possession of an amount of a controlled substance that is visible to the naked eye, it is a sufficient amount to permit prosecution.
People v Harrington,
We believe that the instant case contains "other facts and circumstances” sufficient to distinguish it from the facts in Hunten. In Hunten, the defendant and а fellow inmate at the Muskegon Correctional Facility were fighting in the defendant’s *38 cell. A routine search of the defendant’s cell was conducted and revealed a syringe and a small pipe hidden in the defendant’s shoe. As in this case, lаboratory tests were conducted on the residue found on the syringe. Those tests confirmed that the syringe contained a controlled substance. In that context, this Court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support an inference that the defendant knowingly possessed a controlled substance. Id.
In this case, although it is true that there was a minuscule quantity of cocaine found in defendant’s constructive possession, other facts were in existence thаt would permit the inference of scienter. Defendant was in his room alone and was observed engaged in what Bultema perceived as the use of a controlled substance. Defendant attempted to dispose of the evidence by throwing the syringe out his window and wiping up the blood with the notebook paper. Moreover, defendant arguably destroyed other evidence in the presence of the officers when he swallowed a package of what appeared to be cocaine. These facts, in conjunction with the laboratory tests confirming the presence of cocaine in defendant’s possession, were sufficient to allow an inference of criminal scienter and to distinguish this case from the holding in Hunten.
Defendant’s next argument is that the prosecutor improperly commented about his right to remain silent when he stated in rebuttal:
Finally, on the question of access to the room, again you heard the оfficers testify. They testified that the rooms are locked. They are single inmate rooms. Inmates and officers have access to those rooms only. We have not heard from any other inmates in Elm Unit that testified they were with the defendant that day in his room.
*39
This Court evaluates the remarks of a prosecutor in the context in which they were made to determine whether a defendant was denied a fair and impartial trial.
People v Lawton,
In this case, the prosecutor made the above-quoted comments in response to defense counsel’s closing argument. In that argument, defense counsel attempted to create reasonable doubt by implying that the prosecution failed to rebut the theory that other inmates had access to defendant’s room. Under the circumstances, it was permissible for the prosecutor to respond to defendant’s argument by commenting that no other inmates came forward to corroborate defendant’s theory.
Next, defendant argues that the court’s instruction to the jury with regard to his prior conviction and сharacter denied him a fair trial because he did not testify. However, defendant failed to object to the instruction. Our Supreme Court recently reinforced the well-established rule that appellate courts should refrain from reviеwing instructional errors absent an objection to the instruction in the trial court.
People v Van Dorsten,
Defendant’s final argument is that the prosecution’s use of peremptory challenges denied him a fair trial. We decline to address the issue because defеndant failed to raise the issue or to otherwise develop a record below that would provide us with sufficient facts to address the issue on the merits. See
People v Williams,
Affirmed.