JUSTICE KNECHT delivered the opinion of the court:

A jury convicted defendant, Paul A. Shevock, of unlawful possession of a methamphetamine manufacturing chemical withthe intent to manufacture methamphetamine (720 ILCS 570/401(a)(6.6)(A) (West 2000)). The trial court sentenced him to a 10-year prison term. Defendant appeals, contending that (1) he wasnot found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and (2) the trialcourt erred in admitting into evidence content labels on over-the-counter medication boxes in violation of the rule againsthearsay. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Officer Geoffrey Coon of the Champaign police department testified that in the early morning hours of January 10,2000, he was on duty and patrolling the area near the MicrotelInn in Champaign, Illinois. He patrolled that area frequentlydue to numerous recent calls on drug activity and fights. Thatmorning he noticed a car backed into a parking spot in a cornernear a garbage Dumpster, away from other vehicles. The car didnot have a front license plate. He looked in the vehicle anddiscovered two red plastic gas containers, a white plastic bagwith three one-gallon size Igloo-type coolers and numeroushanging and bottled air fresheners. He noted a Tennessee rearlicense plate. He compared the room registration with thelicense-plate registration and found two different names. Hediscussed his findings with other officers, and the drug taskforce was notified.

Members of the task force came to defendant's room. Defendant cooperated with the officers in the search of his roomand his car. The evidence at trial was uncontradicted thatdefendant possessed 23 boxes of Sudafed antihistamine medication,two canisters of salt, razor blades, pipes, tubes, valves, aglass jar wrapped in duct tape, Mason jars with lids, a pan, afunnel, coffee filters, a turkey baster, lithium batteries, ahot-plate heating coil, and starter fluid. All of these itemswere in his motel room. Police also found a chunky substancewrapped in tinfoil, which was later identified as methamphetamine. Defendant's automobile contained several one-gallon sizethermal bottles and several types of air fresheners confirmingwhat Officer Coon had seen.

Illinois State Police special agent William Kroncketestified he was certified by the federal Drug EnforcementAdministration as a clandestine methamphetamine laboratoryspecialist. He has been involved in at least 50 investigationsinvolving clandestine methamphetamine labs, and during hiscertification training he was required to "cook" a batch ofmethamphetamine. He stated the items necessary to manufacturemethamphetamine include lithium, usually obtained from camerabatteries; anhydrous ammonia, a highly dangerous and strong-smelling liquid that needs to be handled with surgical-type masksand gloves, and that is usually obtained from farmers, who use itas fertilizer; pseudoephedrine or ephedrine, found in over-the-counter cold medications; starting fluid; salt; coffee filters;various plastic containers used for storing chemicals such asanhydrous ammonia; clear plastic tubing; and a heating source. The manufacturing process included a chemical reaction betweenthe anhydrous ammonia and the lithium combined with thepseudoephedrine or ephedrine after being heated. Salt was alsoused in the formula. Tubing and filters as well as a turkeybaster were necessary to remove impurities from the resultingmethamphetamine.

Agent Kroncke was present in defendant's motel room andstated he believed, due to the contents of the room, it couldhave been a clandestine methamphetamine laboratory. AgentKroncke further stated there is a formula used to predict howmuch methamphetamine could be yielded from a certain quantity ofSudafed. The amount of Sudafed defendant possessed would yieldbetween 33 and 51 grams of methamphetamine.

The label of a box of Sudafed stated its active ingredient was pseudoephedrine. The box was admitted into evidenceover defendant's objection.

Officer Scott Swan testified defendant told him at thetime his motel room was searched there might be a couple items inthe room that would test positive for methamphetamine residue. Further evidence at trial included the fact defendant was aparole violator from Tennessee and registered at the motel underan assumed name.

Defendant sought a directed verdict, based in part onthe court's erroneous admission of the Sudafed box and label. The trial court denied the motion.

Defendant testified he was from Tennessee and had cometo Champaign to look for work. As he was between jobs, he hadmoved out of his house and moved all of his belongings to thehouse of a friend for storage. During his last trip through hishouse, he loaded the last bit of odds and ends left into thetrunk of his car. He had then traveled to Champaign.

Defendant explained that in addition to the itemsenumerated in the State's testimony, he also had with him aflashlight, a coffee pot, silverware and kitchen utensils,clothing and personal hygiene items, towels, three cartons ofcigarettes, and seven four-packs of Boost, a nutritional supplement drink. He denied having manufactured methamphetamine orknowing how to do so. He admitted he purchased some in Tennesseeand then smoked some while on the trip to Illinois. Defendantadmitted being on parole in Tennessee and, because he could notlegally leave the state, he used a false name while checking intothe motel.

Defendant then gave explanations for his possession ofeach of the items that the State maintained were necessary forthe manufacture of methamphetamine. He explained the Sudafed wasfor personal use as he took handfuls of it daily to keep himselfawake because he had a fear of sleeping and not waking up. Thisfear arose after experiencing the implantation of a pacemakerwhen he was found unconscious by a friend following a long periodof sleep and unconsciousness. If the friend had not discoveredhim, he was told by the doctors, he likely would not have survived. The medical condition was documented in the record.

Defendant testified the amount of Sudafed found was amonth's supply. In addition, he had a large quantity of cigarettes and testified he smoked a pack a day. He also possessed alarge amount of Boost. Defendant stated he buys items that heuses regularly in bulk even though he is between jobs and moneyis tight. The Sudafed box contained a warning against the use ofthe product by a person with heart disease, high blood pressure,diabetes, or thyroid disease unless directed by a doctor. Defendant denied having a heart disease. He knew he took morethan the recommended dosage but claimed to have no ill effectsfrom his overuse of Sudafed.

Defendant further stated he possessed the salt todefrost the windshield of his car in the morning, as the weatherwas freezing rain and sleet that night and, since the windshieldalready had a crack in it, he did not want to crack it further bythawing it with warm water.

Defendant stated the razor blades were to shave andmake himself presentable for his job search in the morning. Thepipes, tubes, valves and jars were related to an abovegroundswimming pool that he moved to his friend's house. They were inthe utility room of his house and he simply stuffed them into aduffel bag he usually used for clothes. He had brought theduffel bag into the motel room by mistake, thinking it containeda change of clothes. The pan and funnel were to change oil inhis car because it leaked. The batteries were for his flashlight; he bought lithium batteries because they lasted longer. The starter fluid was for his stepfather, who was a trucker, anddefendant was meeting him for dinner in the Chicago area the nextday. His stepfather needed starter fluid for his semi-truckduring freezing weather. Defendant stated because he was in themiddle of a move, he had thrown last-minute items into the trunkof the car or into the duffel bag.

Defendant testified the duct tape was wrapped aroundthe Mason jar to keep it from breaking. Liquid had been in thejar when discovered by the police but it had been poured out. Defendant claimed it was chorine left from his pool. The emptygallon containers found in the car were for filling with water tofill the leaking radiator.

On this evidence, a jury convicted defendant and thetrial court denied his posttrial motion, in which defendantrenewed his objection to the admission of the Sudafed box andlabel, and sentenced him as stated. This appeal followed.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Sudafed Label as Inadmissible Hearsay

We first consider defendant's claim of error in theState's introduction into evidence of the boxes of Sudafed forproof Sudafed actually contained, and defendant possessed, 5,520milligrams of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine because it was sostated on the label. He maintains (1) the label on the boxconstituted hearsay and did not fit under the business recordsexception or any other recognized exception to the rule againsthearsay; and (2) the State failed to present any witness toauthenticate the pills, interpret the boxes' labels, or testifySudafed pills were a necessary ingredient of a methamphetaminerecipe.

The confrontation clause of the United States andIllinois Constitutions (U.S. Const., amend. VI; Ill. Const. 1970,art. I,