☢ test - Í

rationale for requiring such a rule follows: ‘Unless an accused is informed at the trial of the facts of which the court is taking judicial notice, not only does he not know upon what evidence he is being convicted, but, in addition, he is deprived of any opportunity to challenge the deductions drawn from such notice or to dispute the notoriety or truth of the facts allegedly relied upon. Moreover, there is no way by which an appellate court may review the facts and law of a case and intelligently decide whether the findings of the lower court are supported by evidence where that evidence is unknown.’ (Citation and footnote omitted.) Id. In this case, the trial court did not follow this procedure, resulting in the exact scenario the Supreme Court sought to avoid in Graves, supra. As a result, we cannot find that judicial notice of testimony in other cases supports the trial court’s ruling in this case.” Accord, Disharoon v State , 288 Ga.App. 1, 652 S.E.2d 902 (October 23, 2007) (Trial court improperly took judicial notice of a fact [that most people who take the SAT are over 16 years old] “without first announcing its intention on the record and the giving the parties an opportunity to respond.”); Stewart v. State , 288 Ga.App. 735, 655 S.E.2d 328 (December 4, 2007) (trial court erred in taking judicial notice that road was marked for lanes of traffic after close of evidence without opportunity for parties to respond); In re: J.B. , 289 Ga.App. 617, 658 S.E.2d 194 (February 14, 2008) (court couldn’t take judicial notice of venue in juvenile proceeding without notice and opportunity to respond). Ponce v. State, 279 Ga.App. 207, 630 S.E.2d 840 (May 5, 2006). PSC rules in question here could not be judicially noticed as “those rules have not become effective under the [Administrative Procedures Act].” “Rules that are not promulgated pursuant to the APA are not entitled to judicial notice. See Commissioner, Dep't of Human Resources v. Haggard, 173 Ga.App. 676, 677 (327 S.E.2d 798) (1985) (rule never filed with or published by Secretary of State not entitled to judicial notice); Dix v. State, 156 Ga.App. 868, 869 (275 S.E.2d 807) (1981).” Rules here were not included in the Secretary of State’s official written compilation or on the Secretary of State’s website, but were accessible on the PSC’s own website and available by hyperlink from the Secretary of State’s website. “[B]ecause the Secretary of State’s official printed compilation of Georgia’s rules and regulations does not contain or refer to the rules, we conclude that the Secretary of State has not ‘published’ them within the meaning of the APA. Even if the hyperlink on the Secretary of State’s website can be construed as a publication of the rules, that link is supplied only ‘as a courtesy’ and is accompanied by a caveat that the transportation rules ‘are not subject to the requirements of the [APA].’” Garmon v. State, 269 Ga.App. 795, 605 S.E.2d 606 (September 30, 2004). “This Court can ‘take judicial notice of the statutorily mandated official state highway map. [Cits.]’ Hendrix v. State, 242 Ga.App. 678, 679(1) (530 S.E.2d 804) (2000).” NNN. JUVENILE OFFENSES Bravo v. State, 269 Ga.App. 242, 603 S.E.2d 669 (August 6, 2004). “[A]s a juvenile crime on which she had completed her sentence, the shoplifting charge was not admissible” to impeach victim. Murray v. State, 335 Ga.App. 634, 782 S.E.2d 694 (February 9, 2016). Physical precedent only on this point; evidence supported defendant’s conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. Using a false name, defendant accepted delivery of a package containing the marijuana. The package was mistakenly delivered to the residence of an innocent person, Howell, who contacted the police. Murray contacted Howell, looking for the package, and arranged to meet her at Home Depot to receive it. Contrary to defendant’s argument, the evidence was sufficient to allow a finder of fact to find that he knew what the package contained and intended to distribute the marijuana. “In this case, evidence of Murray’s behavior in attempting to obtain the package, including questioning Howell about whether she had contacted police and had opened the package, attempting to conceal his identity by using a false name, and his previous convictions for conspiracy to sell marijuana and possession of cocaine provided sufficient evidence from which a rational trier of fact could conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he had knowledge of the presence of the marijuana in the package and the power and intention to exercise control over it.” Hicks v. State, 295 Ga. 268, 759 S.E.2d 509 (June 2, 2014). Convictions for felony murder and related offenses affirmed; defendant could be convicted as a party to the various crimes (aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, armed robbery, etc.), each of which involved use of a weapon, without proof that Hicks had knowledge that one of her co- conspirators was carrying a rifle. “‘[A] criminal conspiracy is a partnership in crime, and ... there is in each conspiracy a joint or mutual agency for the prosecution of a common plan. Thus, if two or more persons enter into a conspiracy, any OOO. JURY VIEW See JURIES AND JURORS – JURY VIEW, below PPP. KNOWLEDGE See also JURIES AND JURORS – CHARGE – INTENT/KNOWLEDGE/MALICE/NEGLIGENCE, below