☢ test - Í

Romero v. State, 307 Ga.App. 348, 705 S.E.2d 195 (October 29, 2010). Defendants’ aggravated assault convictions affirmed; evidence was sufficient to convict defendants as parties to the crime. While mere presence isn’t sufficient to convict, “the jury was entitled to infer that Romero and Torres accompanied Luing to the convenience store knowing that he intended to assault the victim because of their past differences, and that Romero had specifically served as the getaway driver, and that Torres had accompanied Luing inside the store as a lookout making both men parties to the aggravated assault.” Accord, Wise v. State , 325 Ga.App. 377, 752 S.E.2d 628 (December 10, 2013) (getaway driver convicted of burglary); Platt v. State , 335 Ga.App. 49, 778 S.E.2d 416 (October 27, 2015) (getaway driver convicted of voluntary manslaughter; also provided ammunition); White v. State , 298 Ga. 416, 782 S.E.2d 280 (February 1, 2016) (“White drove Sturgis slowly past the crime scene, circled back, returned to the scene a second time, stopped before the shooting, rapidly drove Sturgis and Wideman away from the scene after the shooting, dropped them off before going to work, and lied about his presence when questioned by police.”). Wade v. State, 305 Ga.App. 819, 701 S.E.2d 214 (September 2, 2010). Defendant’s convictions for cocaine and marijuana possession, and related offenses, affirmed; evidence supported defendant’s convictions for drugs found on his nephew’s person. “The evidence below established that Wade had driven his nephew to Atlanta for the purpose of purchasing drugs and had then helped him negotiate the purchase of both the marijuana and the cocaine. The conclusion that Wade had assisted his nephew in his efforts to possess the cocaine was strengthened by the fact that the nephew was blind – i.e., the nephew could not have driven himself to locate the drugs, and he could not have completed the purchase by himself. Thus, the evidence was sufficient to support Wade's conviction as a party to the crime of possession of cocaine. Waters v. State, 280 Ga.App. 566, 567 (634 S.E.2d 508) (2006) (defendant, who knew he was transporting a co-defendant carrying methamphetamine, was party to the crime of possession of the contraband); Sherrer v. State, 289 Ga.App. 156, 159-160(2) (656 S.E.2d 258) (2008) (though not in actual possession of the contraband, defendant was shown to be actively involved in a criminal enterprise to possess methamphetamine); Jackson v. State, 259 Ga.App. 108, 110 (576 S.E.2d 85) (2003) (‘one who acts as the conduit or intermediary through which a drug sale takes place is a party to that crime’).” Nelson v. State, 305 Ga.App. 425, 699 S.E.2d 783 (July 29, 2010). Defendant’s convictions for cocaine possession and giving false name to officer affirmed; evidence sufficed to convict defendant as party to crime of possession of cocaine “found in the crotch area of [co-defendant] Heard’s pants.” “The evidence supports a finding that Nelson was present in the small hotel room filled with drugs and drug paraphernalia in plain view during at least three drug transactions that occurred within a two-hour period, that he possessed the two marked bills taken from the informant and the $50 bills taken from the undercover officer, that he alone possessed the cash proceeds from the drug sales, that he permitted Heard to give out his cell phone number so that the undercover officer could make future drug deals with them, that he lied about his identity to the police, and that he previously had been convicted of a similar crime. Given this evidence, the jury was authorized to conclude that Nelson was a party to the possession and distribution of the cocaine found on Heard's person and in the hotel room and that he shared Heard's criminal intent to distribute the drugs. See Haywood v. State, 301 Ga.App. 717, 719-720(1) (689 S.E.2d 82) (2009).” Green v. State, 301 Ga.App. 866, 689 S.E.2d 132 (January 6, 2010). Evidence supported defendant’s conviction for burglary. “[A]lthough there was no direct evidence that Green personally entered Moore's house, [fn] the evidence authorized the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Green participated in the burglary of Moore's house by actively aiding, abetting, and encouraging it. See OCGA § 16-2-20. [fn] Specifically, the evidence that , knowing that her husband and Young were removing portable property from the house of an unknown person, Green asked her husband to take specific items of property that she wanted is sufficient to sustain her conviction as a party to the crime of burglary. Dunn v. State, 245 Ga.App. 847, 847-848, 539 S.E.2d 198 (2000) (the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of burglary as a party to the crime where he counseled and encouraged others to commit burglaries by telling them that he would buy particular types of guns and then buying their stolen weapons); Todd v. State, 189 Ga.App. 538, 539-540(2), 376 S.E.2d 917 (1988) (the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of burglary as a party to the crime where he counseled and encouraged others to commit burglaries by telling them that he would buy particular types of guns and electronic equipment, later buying their stolen goods, and asking them where the goods were stolen so that he could resell in a different area).” Haywood v. State, 301 Ga.App. 717, 689 S.E.2d 82 (December 16, 2009). Evidence supported defendant’s conviction as a party to possession of marijuana and cocaine with intent to distribute. Haywood contended that only his co-defendant, Clayton, intended to distribute the drugs; Haywood admitted that he knew Clayton’s intent, but only held the drugs for Clayton while planning to use some of them himself. “There was evidence that Haywood had actual possession of the