☢ test - Í

attempted to sell drugs to police informant. Defendant was present in room when Garduno showed drugs to informant. Defendant “could see the contents of the [drug] containers from where he was sitting” in the room. Defendant possessed $2485 in cash. “Officer Mayton testified that in his experience, which included more than 100 drug cases in the previous year, no person would be present in a small room with the amount of drugs found here unless they were “intricately involved” in a drug transaction. He also testified that Latinos often carry large amounts of cash because they do not use banks. “[T]he State referred to Garduno as a co-defendant at Benitez's sentencing, but did not show the jury that Garduno was charged as such.” “Even if a rational jury could conclude that Benitez knew that Garduno was carrying methamphetamine, this fact alone ‘would not authorize a finding that [Benitez] aided and abetted him in the offense of trafficking,’” quoting Crenshaw v. State, 183 Ga.App. 527, 528-529 (359 S.E.2d 419) (1987) (“defendant’s traveling on same flight itinerary with person carrying cocaine was insufficient to sustain his conviction for trafficking”). Despite driving to the scene?Compare McGordon (June 2, 2009), above (defendant/driver knew passenger intended to rob store, waited for him at pick-up location and drove him away with fruits of crime). Wester v. State, 294 Ga.App. 263, 668 S.E.2d 862 (October 27, 2008). Evidence supported defendant’s conviction as party to crime of shoplifting. “Here, Wester entered the store with his son, and the jury could have concluded that his actions in stopping directly in front of [store owner] Allen and asking her questions was an attempt to distract her while his son hid the products on his person. When Allen accosted Wester's son, Wester told him to run. Wester also ran from the store to his car and drove them both away. Even his son conceded that when they drove away, Wester knew he had stolen merchandise from the store. Under these circumstances, the jury could have concluded that Wester ‘knowingly agreed to act, and did act, as a getaway driver to facilitate [his son's] commission of theft by shoplifting.’ Stewart v. State, 243 Ga.App. 860, 861-862(1) (534 S.E.2d 544) (2000).” Accord, Romero (October 29, 2010), above (getaway driver and lookout were parties to crime). Cox v. State, 293 Ga.App. 98, 666 S.E.2d 379 (June 11, 2008). Evidence supported defendant’s conviction as party to crime of armed robbery: defendant “was in the apartment when White pointed the gun at Powell and demanded his money. He left the apartment, at about the same time as White, and was seen carrying the victim's gun and stowing it in the trunk of White’s car. Cox then rode with White and the others to a store, where White and he went in together to make their purchases. Cox also accepted $100 from White, which he believed was intended to keep him quiet. Then following his arrest, Cox invented a story in an attempt to explain why White’s cell phone was at the crime scene. The jury could have concluded from this evidence that even if Cox had not planned the robbery with White in advance, he chose to participate in the crime after White began it .” Howard v. State, 291 Ga.App. 289, 661 S.E.2d 644 (April 24, 2008). “Ralph Howard, Sharon Howard and Ronnie Williams were all charged with drug and weapon charges. Since all three occupants of the car were charged with joint possession of the duffel bag, the state ‘did not bear the burden of showing that one or the other was in sole possession of the drug.’ See Waters v. State, 280 Ga.App. 566, 567-568 (634 S.E.2d 508) (2006). It is well-established that joint constructive possession with another will sustain a conviction for the possession of contraband. See Waters, supra at 567. After all, ‘[p]ossession may be joint or exclusive, and actual or constructive.’ (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Davis [ v. State, 270 Ga.App. 777, 779(1) (607 S.E.2d 924) (2004)]. Here, the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find joint constructive possession of the contraband and weapon. See Warren v. State, 254 Ga.App. 52, 53-54(1) (561 S.E.2d 190) (2002). The evidence shows that Ralph Howard exercised control over the car that transported the contraband and weapon, the contraband and weapon were located in a brown paper bag and hidden in Williams’ blue duffel bag, and Sharon Howard tried to retrieve the brown paper bag at the sheriff’s office through suspicious and inconsistent explanations. One should not forget the Howards’ marital status either, for ‘where transactions involving relatives are under review, slight circumstances are often sufficient to induce a belief that there was collusion between the parties.’ (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Warren, supra at 54-55. The evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict that the Howards, along with their co-defendant, were a party to these crimes and that they all had joint constructive possession of the contraband and weapon. See Davis, supra; Warren, supra.” Accord, Holloway v. State , 297 Ga.App. 81, 676 S.E.2d 445 (March 26, 2009) (where co-defendants were charged jointly with drug trafficking, State “was not required to prove that either possessed the cocaine alone,” citing Howard ). In re: C.L., 289 Ga.App. 377, 657 S.E.2d 301 (January 29, 2008). 1. Evidence did not support defendant’s participation as a party to attempted hijacking of car: while juvenile was with hijacker, co-defendant testified that juvenile objected to hijacking plan. No evidence showed “that C.L. aided, abetted, counseled, encouraged, advised, hired, procured, or approved of Crittendon’s actions.” 2. Evidence supported conviction for aggravated assault, however ; “ After the first incident, C.L. was on notice that Crittendon was not bluffing and was intent on hijacking a motor vehicle.