☢ test - Í

Cochran v. State, 300 Ga.App. 92, 684 S.E.2d 136 (September 16, 2009). Evidence supported finding of defendant’s possession of marijuana, found in duffle bags in trunk of rental car driven by defendant’s girlfriend. Defendant was in front passenger seat, but had possession of the car “for several hours.” The odor of marijuana was “noticeable by anyone inside the vehicle. Even without showing that Cochran would necessarily recognize the smell of raw marijuana, the odor ‘allows an inference that, combined with other evidence, could show a connection between the defendant and the contraband.’ See Vines [ v. State, 296 Ga.App. 543, 546(1), 675 S.E.2d 260 (2009)].” “Although he was a passenger, Cochran was not on a relatively short distance ride with an acquaintance. Compare Mitchell [ v. State, 268 Ga. 592 (492 S.E.2d 204) (1997)] (driver picked up defendant to go to a cookout). He was on a long distance journey [from Ohio to Georgia] with a person with whom he had a five-year intimate relationship. See, e.g., Vines, 296 Ga.App. at 546(1) (evidence connecting defendant to drugs found in the car included his joint living arrangement with the other defendants). Further, the evidence that Cochran and Cunningham had both controlled the car, and thus had access to the trunk of the vehicle, was consistent with their joint constructive possession of the contraband. Castillo v. State, 166 Ga.App. 817, 822(2) (305 S.E.2d 629) (1983) (‘By showing circumstantially that each of the defendants had equal access to the drugs, the state was able to support its theory that all of the defendants were parties to the crime and thus guilty of joint constructive possession of the drugs’).” See also Vines (March 10, 2009), below. Accord, Sabb v. State , 317 Ga.App. 537, 731 S.E.2d 399 (August 30, 2012). Green v. State, 299 Ga.App. 874, 683 S.E.2d 914 (August 27, 2009). Evidence supported defendant’s cocaine trafficking conviction, despite defendant’s contention that the evidence showed his mere presence at the scene. Officers found three plastice bags containing cocaine in an area where defendant walked after being dropped off by a van being chased by police. “Both officers noted that the bags were dry even though it had been “raining pretty strong” earlier in the evening and ‘the ground was pretty saturated.’ … A search of the van revealed crack cocaine smoking filter devices inside the center console of the roof where sunglasses are normally kept. A search of the van's driver revealed $896, and a search of Green yielded $397. An officer also located a handwritten receipt showing that the van belonged to Green.” Perkins v. State, 300 Ga.App. 464, 685 S.E.2d 300 (August 18, 2009). Defendant’s conviction for cocaine trafficking was supported by more than “mere spatial proximity” to the drugs found in car she was driving. Officer testified that, during stop for seat belt violation, “Perkins voice quivered, her hands shook, and she kept looking back and forth from the rear of the vehicle to the front; that she gave him an Ohio driver's license and was unable to provide proof of insurance or a rental car agreement; that he detected the odor of burnt marijuana coming from inside the vehicle; that he retrieved the dog to conduct a free air sniff; and that after his dog alerted at the vehicle, [Officer] Perry noticed tears pouring down Perkins's face, which she attributed to the wind blowing in her face. Therefore, based on Perry's testimony and the fact that Perkins was the driver and sole occupant of the car when stopped, the evidence was sufficient to support the finding that Perkins had knowledge of the cocaine in the car and was guilty of trafficking in cocaine.” Turner v. State, 298 Ga.App. 107, 679 S.E.2d 127 (May 22, 2009). Evidence supported defendant’s conviction for drug possession: “the jury was authorized to find a sufficient connection between Turner and the methamphetamine seized from a closet inside his own home to conclude that he constructively possessed the contraband. [fn: Compare with Mitchell v. State, 150 Ga.App. 44, 46(2) (256 S.E.2d 652) (1979) (reversing a conviction for possession of narcotics found at a home – and not on the persons of the appellants – because no testimony was presented ‘that either appellant owned, leased[,] or resided in the premises’). ] Although Turner contends that his testimony at trial showed that other individuals had equal access to the narcotic, the State presented sufficient evidence that Turner resided at the property in question, and the jury could, therefore, presume that he had greater access and control over a space such as the closet in which the methamphetamine was located than the access or control a mere occupant would have had over the space.” Accord, Smith (April 16, 2009), below; Brown (November 24, 2010), above. Smith v. State, 297 Ga.App. 526, 677 S.E.2d 717 (April 16, 2009). Evidence supported defendant’s convictions for possession of drugs found in dresser drawers and elsewhere in his home, “‘even though there also was evidence authorizing a finding that others had equal access to the same contraband. Whether the evidence that others had access to the contraband was sufficient to rebut the evidence that [Smith] was in possession of the drug[s] was properly reserved for the jury.’ (Footnote omitted.) McWhorter v. State, 275 Ga.App. 624, 628-629(1)(b) (621 S.E.2d 571) (2005).” Also citing Castillo (December 11, 2007), and Daughtry (February 21, 2007), both below. Accord, Turner (May 22, 2009), above. Ware v. State, 297 Ga.App. 400, 677 S.E.2d 423 (April 8, 2009). “[T]he evidence was sufficient to support a finding that Ware had actual possession of the cocaine. After observing Ware make a throwing motion with his hands, the officers immediately proceeded to the location where he had been standing and retrieved the cocaine from the ground. Although