☢ test - Í

molestation that the pornographic material was shown to her by the defendant immediately prior to or during the sexual molestation furnished sufficient linkage between the materials and the various sexual crimes for admission.” Accord, Williams v. State , 267 Ga.App. 283, 599 S.E.2d 256 (May 6, 2004); Johnson v. State , 274 Ga.App. 69, 616 S.E.2d 848 (June 28, 2005) (disapproved on other grounds, Miller v. State , 285 Ga. 285, 676 S.E.2d 173 (April 28, 2009)); Ferrill v. State , 278 Ga.App. 132, 628 S.E.2d 217 (March 8, 2006); Williams v. State , 284 Ga.App. 255, 643 S.E.2d 749 (February 21, 2007) (videotapes identified by victim were admissible); Worley v. State , 319 Ga.App. 799, 738 S.E.2d 641 (February 20, 2013); Wright v. State , 322 Ga.App. 622, 745 S.E.2d 866 (July 3, 2013). Lunsford v. State, 260 Ga.App. 818, 581 S.E.2d 638 (April 10, 2003). “In a prosecution for a sexual offense, evidence of sexual paraphernalia found in defendant’s possession is inadmissible unless it shows defendant’s lustful disposition toward the sexual activity with which he is charged or his bent of mind to engage in that activity. Under this rule, sexually explicit material cannot be introduced merely to show a defendant’s interest in sexual activity. It can only be admitted if it can be linked to the crime charged.” Here, videotape of young girls was relevant to charges of child molestation; other tapes and magazines were not. Based on Simpson v. State , 271 Ga. 772, 523 S.E.2d 320 (1999). Accord, Groves v. State , 263 Ga.App. 828, 590 S.E.2d 136 (October 2, 2003) (pornographic images of young girls, including girls in cheerleader uniforms, admissible where teacher accused of having sex with cheerleader; image of penis admissible where another victim said defendant showed her such a picture); Williams v. State , 284 Ga.App. 255, 643 S.E.2d 749 (February 21, 2007) (videotapes identified by victim were admissible); Newton v. State , 296 Ga.App. 332, 674 S.E.2d 379 (February 27, 2009) (magazines defendant looked at while with victim). Simpson v. State, 271 Ga. 772, 523 S.E.2d 320 (November 1, 1999). “In a prosecution for a sexual offense, evidence of sexual paraphernalia found in defendant's possession is inadmissible unless it shows defendant's lustful disposition toward the sexual activity with which he is charged or his bent of mind to engage in that activity. Under this rule, sexually explicit material cannot be introduced merely to show a defendant's interest in sexual activity. It can only be admitted if it can be linked to the crime charged.” No error here, as testimony about defendant’s sexually-explicit letters to his girlfriend were not objected to in his prosecution for molestation of girlfriend’s sister. Accord, Frazier v. State , 241 Ga.App. 125, 524 S.E.2d 768 (November 8, 1999) (child molestation convictions reversed; evidence of defendant’s “lustful disposition,” not relevant to child molestation incidents, wrongly admitted, following Simpson ). But see Black (September 10, 2010), above (“it is not clear whether Simpson prohibits oral testimony regarding a defendant's possession of pornographic materials, as opposed to admission of the materials themselves”). Distinguished, Easter (June 12, 2013), above. RRRR. POSSESSION/ EQUAL ACCESS See also DEFENSES – EQUAL ACCESS, above; JURIES AND JURORS – CHARGE – POSSESSION, and OFFENSES – CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES – POSSESSION OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES, below Morales v. State, 332 Ga.App. 794, 775 S.E.2d 168 (July 7, 2015). Evidence failed to establish that defendant possessed drugs found in a residence he was visiting. 1. “ Although Morales was in the Senft residence just before the officers conducted the search, he had arrived only minutes earlier ; and there was no evidence that he had possessed the drugs while there, or had carried the drugs into the residence. Additionally, there was no evidence that the officers found anything in the residence ‘that linked [Morales] to the residence such as clothing, bills, fingerprints, financial statements, photographs, records, books, or other personal belongings.’[fn] Nor was there evidence that the officers found drugs, cash or other evidence on Morales's person linking him to the contents of the Senft residence.[fn] Indeed, several other people were present at the residence when the drugs were discovered, such that other persons had equal (or greater) access to the contraband and equal (or greater) opportunity to commit the crimes.[fn] There was no evidence that the marijuana and methamphetamine found in Ziploc bags (one bag was on top of a bedspread or pillow on the floor, and the other was ‘beside a blanket or something that was all jumbled up,’ under a chair on the floor in the cluttered bedroom), would have been plainly visible to Morales, or that Morales had the power and intention to exercise control over the drugs while he was in the bedroom.” 2. “That Morales fled when officers—who had not identified themselves as police officers—entered without knocking and threw a ‘flashbang’ device into the Senft residence, was not sufficient evidence to support the guilty verdict, as it is well established that neither presence at the scene nor flight, nor both together, without more, is conclusive evidence of guilt.” 3. “Finally, Morales's convictions cannot be upheld on the ground that he was a party to the crimes, because the state failed to present evidence that he intentionally caused another to commit the crimes, aided or abetted in the commission of the crimes, or advised or encouraged another to commit the crimes.” Smith v. State, 331 Ga.App. 296, 771 S.E.2d 8 (March 19, 2015). Evidence supported finding that defendant was in possession of methamphetamine and marijuana “found in Smith's immediate presence, stuffed under the mattress