In People v. Murray, 234 Mich App 46, 56; 593 NW2d 690 (1999), the Court clarified that while drug profile evidence is not admissible as substantive evidence of a defendant's guilt, it may be admissible when offered to assist "the jury in intelligently understanding the evidentiary backdrop of the case, and the modus operandi of drug dealers." In Murray, the Court set forth a variety of factors to consider "in distinguishing between the appropriate and inappropriate use of drug profile evidence." Id. at 56-58. The Court listed four factors to apply when considering whether drug profile evidence should be admitted. First, the drug-profile evidence must be offered as background or modus operandi evidence, and not as substantive evidence of guilt, and the distinction must be carefully maintained by the attorneys and the court. Second, something more than drug profile evidence must be admitted to prove a defendant's guilt; multiple pieces of profile do not add up to guilt without something more. Third, the trial court must make clear to the jury what is and is not an appropriate use of the drug-profile evidence by, e.g., instructing the jury that drug-profile evidence is properly used only as background or modus operandi evidence and should not be used as substantive evidence of guilt. Fourth, the expert witness should not be permitted to express an opinion that, on the basis of the profile, defendant is guilty, and should not expressly compare the defendant's characteristics to the profile in a way that implies that the defendant is guilty. 234 Mich. App. at 56-57.