him. Defendant indicated that he used the substances found along with the bag “to get high” and that he had illegally secured the substances from friends and over the Internet. This evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to support a finding of guilt with respect to each element of the charged offense. See Gillis, 474 Mich at 113. V THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY REJECTED DEFENDANT’S PROPOSED SPECIAL JURY INSTRUCTION Defendant was not entitled to a special jury instruction regarding the MCL 333.7227(1) exclusion from the definition of a “controlled substance.” As this exception is not an element of the charged possession offense, defendant was not constitutionally entitled to have the instruction presented to the jury. Kowalski, 489 Mich at 501 (<HOLDING>). Although not a constitutional mandate, our
holding that the constitutional guarantee of a right to trial by jury includes the right to a complete and correct charge of the law so that each issue of fact raised by the evidence will be submitted to the jury on proper instructions holding defendant by pleading guilty admits all essential elements of offense charged holding that a jury instruction directing the verdict on one element deprived defendant of the right to a jury determination on every element of the charged offense and thus constituted structural error holding that protection of a defendants constitutional right to be convicted only after a jurys consideration of every essential element of the charged offense demands that the jury be given proper instructions regarding all elements of the crime holdingthat an error in instructing the jury that an offense could be committed by a statutory method not charged in the indictment is cured where  the court provides the jury with the indictment and instructs jurors that the burden of proof rests upon the state to prove every material allegation of the indictment and every essential element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt  citation omitted