The opinion
SIMS, J.
I concur in the opinion of the court. I write separately simply to state that, in my view, substantial evidence supports defendant’s convictions on counts I and II even upon the assumption the jury concluded defendant Bryson, and not defendant Small, “possessed” the tote bag.
The jury could reasonably conclude the coffee filters in the tote bag had been obtained directly from a methamphetamine manufacturing lab and not from an intermediary street dealer. The jury could furthermore conclude the coffee filters had been obtained not simply from any methamphetamine lab but were in fact obtained from the methamphetamine lab in front of which the automobile appeared at 3 a.m. In short, the jury could readily conclude Bryson had obtained methamphetamine and associated coffee filters from the lab in question and had appeared at the lab at 3 a.m. in order to transact some further business there.
Because the tote bag was open, and because the coffee filters emitted an unusual and strong order, the jury could also infer that defendant Small knew of the presence of methamphetamine (and coffee filters) in the tote bag and, hence, of defendant Bryson’s intent to transact business at the lab. This is all the more so given the implausible nature of Small’s excuse for being at the lab at 3 a.m. It is unusual for young men to visit young women, even for *328 sexual purposes, at 3 a.m., and no evidence, particularly including any testimony from the young woman in question, corroborated defendant Small’s explanation of his presence.
From the totality of the foregoing circumstances, the jury could conclude both defendant Bryson and defendant Small knew of the presence of the methamphetamine lab and were on their way to it to transact business there. In these circumstances, the presence of defendant’s fingerprints on manufacturing apparatus within the lab constitutes substantial evidence showing that defendant was actively involved in the manufacture of methamphetamine, including possessing chemicals necessary to the manufacture.
Appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied December 14, 1988.