☢ test - Í

stating that ‘possession of the firearm was established by [defendant's] dominion over his vehicle’); Brown v. State, 244 Ga.App. 440, 442(2), 535 S.E.2d 785 (2000) (upholding conviction by applying joint constructive possession standard). Still others appear to sustain convictions for OCGA § 16-11-106(b) under OCGA § 16-2-20 (which provides that ‘a person concerned in the commission of a crime is a party thereto and may be charged with and convicted of commission of the crime’), but these cases directly cite only OCGA § 16-11-106(b) and curiously make no direct mention of OCGA § 16-2-20. See Lopez, 259 Ga.App. at 721-22, 578 S.E.2d 304 (mentioning co-defendant's access to weapon); Cassie v. State, 192 Ga.App. 484, 484-86(4), 385 S.E.2d 129 (1989) (upholding conviction under OCGA § 16-11-106(b) against defendant ‘as a party to the acts of co-defendant’ when co-defendant carried a handgun on his person). But see Driscoll v. State, 295 Ga.App. 5, 8(1)(b), 670 S.E.2d 824 (2008) (‘[B]ecause Whaley was also within arm's reach of two handguns during the commission of the felony drug offenses, Driscoll is guilty of Whaley's handgun possession offenses as a party to the crime.’ (citing OCGA § 16-2-20)); Victrum v. State, 203 Ga.App. 377, 379-80(3), 416 S.E.2d 740 (1992) (‘Defendant's co-defendant was within arm's length of two pistols during the commission of the crime; therefore, defendant is guilty of the offense as a party to the crime.’ (citing OCGA § 16-2-20)). Our own Supreme Court has even been less than precise on this particular point. See Hill v. State, 276 Ga. 220, 221(3), 576 S.E.2d 886 (2003) (holding that ‘[e]vidence that the defendant or an accomplice either carried or was within arm's length of a weapon during the commission of a crime authorizes a finding of guilty of violating OCGA § 16-11-106(b),’ but in doing so citing to Tesfaye v. State, 275 Ga. 439, 440(1), 569 S.E.2d 849 (2002) and Victrum, 203 Ga.App. at 379(3), 416 S.E.2d 740, both of which explicitly relied upon OCGA § 16-2-20 in upholding the convictions of accomplices) (emphasis supplied)). ] those decisions are of no precedential utility in construing and applying the plain meaning of OCGA § 16-11-106(b). Aquino v. State, 308 Ga.App. 163, 706 S.E.2d 746 (March 2, 2011). Methamphetamine trafficking conviction reversed; circumstantial evidence didn’t exclude every reasonable hypothesis other than guilt. “Here, there was evidence that the locks on the house had been changed sometime in the preceding three weeks without the landlord's knowledge; Aquino was the only person arrested that day who had a key to the house; he was seen opening the door of the house earlier the same evening on the day of his arrest holding a black bag that could have been the bag that held the drugs; his driver's license was found in a bedroom; and he was in possession of a key to the car parked on the premises whose license tag was found in the basement. But all of this evidence is circumstantial with regard to Aquino's constructive possession of the contraband. … [T]here is nothing in this case linking Aquino to the drugs or manufacturing equipment in the house. There is no evidence that Aquino was holding the bag in which the drugs were found, nor testimony that there were no other similar bags on the premises. He was never seen in proximity to the drugs or drug-making equipment. The drugs were located in a drawer and not visible to the officers when they initially entered the home. No drugs were found on Aquino's person. He was neither the owner, lessee, nor an occupant of the house; in fact, papers were found in the house in several other peoples' names, including several who were not indicted. Although Aquino had a key to the house and the Corvette, he could have borrowed the keys temporarily or been asked to hold them and watch over the house. It was never shown that the key ring held other keys that fit Aquino's own home or his own car. Although his license was found in a bedroom, no clothing was found there nor any other indication that he occupied or lived in the house, nor any other incriminating evidence; in fact, his license showed a different address located nearby. Finally, there is no testimony that the odor of acetone detected in the basement was present on the first floor, the only place where Aquino was seen.” “[S]everal other people with access to the house are unaccounted for and were not charged. Like in Ridgeway, “[the] evidence combined with the presence of a key to the [premises] on the person of defendant raise grave suspicions of defendant's guilt.” Ridgeway [ v. State, 187 Ga.App. 381, 382, 370 S.E.2d 216 (1988)]. Nevertheless, the State has failed to establish that Aquino had both the power and the intention at the time of his arrest to exercise dominion or control over the drugs and failed to show that other men did not have equal access to the house and the items within it.” Brown v. State, 307 Ga.App. 99, 704 S.E.2d 227 (November 24, 2010). Convictions for cocaine trafficking and related offenses affirmed; evidence supported finding that defendant “guilty of possessing the narcotics with the intent to distribute them and that he possessed the scale in furtherance of that crime based on his residing at the house in question for the last five years, the fact that the items were well hidden within the premises, the lack of evidence at the home of any other persons residing therein, Brown's possession of a substantial amount of cash on his person at the time of the search, and his use of the closed circuit surveillance system to monitor his home,” citing Turner(May 29, 2009), below. Floyd v. State, 306 Ga.App. 601, 703 S.E.2d 62 (October 27, 2010). Methampethamine possession and trafficking convictions affirmed; evidence supported finding that defendant and his passenger were in joint constructive possession of drugs found in defendant’s truck. “Floyd drove to the trailer under surveillance for suspected drug activity; the officer saw Floyd exchange something with the trailer's resident; digital scales commonly used to weigh drugs were found in the center console of the truck driven by Floyd, the officer observed that the passenger repeatedly