☢ test - Í

the ground was saturated with water, the cocaine was dry and hard. No other person had been present in the vicinity of the cocaine during the time the officers had the area under surveillance.” Vines v. State, 296 Ga.App. 543, 675 S.E.2d 260 (March 10, 2009). Evidence supported finding that defendant jointly possessed drugs: “In addition to his mere presence in the car, the facts show that Vines rode in the back seat earlier in the trip within arms reach of the backpack. The car had an ‘overwhelming’ odor of marijuana. Vines had a magazine in his pocket that fit [co-defendant] Gibson's 9mm gun. He and [co-defendant] Fabian were incredibly and unusually nervous when the officers approached. The defendants were heavily armed. Vines lived with two of the other defendants. And Gibson's fiancé believed that drug sales were taking place in the home when she lived there approximately one month before the arrests. We hold that taken together these facts provide some evidence of a connection between Vines and the contraband sufficient to show that he knowingly shared the power and intention to exercise dominion or control over it. In a case where a strong odor of contraband is shown, it has been held that even without proving that the appellant was familiar with the odor, the jury may consider the evidence for the conclusion that the appellant should have known that something unusual was in the car. United States v. Hooks, 780 F.2d 1526, 1532 (10 th Cir., 1986). The odor allows an inference that, combined with other evidence, could show a connection between the defendant and the contraband. Womble v. State, 290 Ga.App. 768, 770(2), 660 S.E.2d 848 (2008) (that defendant was found in house where methamphetamine was being manufactured and strong odor of that process permeated house, together with associated paraphernalia found on defendant, sufficient to link methamphetamine found in toilet to defendant). [other cits.]” Accord, Cochran (September 16, 2009), and Dennis (January 18, 2012), both above. O’Neill v. State, 285 Ga. 125, 674 S.E.2d 302 (March 9, 2009). Evidence was insufficient to support defendant’s conviction for possession of methamphetamine where defendant was found passed out on hotel bed with two other, conscious persons in the room. Drugs were found in the room, in boxes claimed by the co-defendants, some in proximity to defendant but not on defendant’s person. Reversing Bryant (March 19, 2008), below. Smith v. State, 296 Ga.App. 160, 674 S.E.2d 42 (February 17, 2009). Evidence supported finding that defendant possessed stolen purse: “First, the officer testified that the purse was right at Smith's feet (if not touching them) on the floorboard of the vehicle. See Vogleson v. State, 250 Ga.App. 555, 561(2) (552 S.E.2d 513) (2001), aff'd, 275 Ga. 637 (571 S.E.2d 752) (2002) (the accomplice's ‘testimony was corroborated by the officers' testimony that the cocaine was discovered on the floorboard of the passenger side of the car where [the defendant] was sitting’). Second, the recording of the suspects' conversation in the back seat of the patrol car showed from Smith's own mouth that Smith was aware and had custody of the drugs in the purse and would have hidden them had the officer not been observing her behavior. This evidence sufficed to sustain the conviction.” McBee v. State, 296 Ga.App. 42, 673 S.E.2d 569 (February 12, 2009). Evidence supported defendant’s conviction for possession of methamphetamine; evidence showed more than “mere spatial proximity” between defendant and the drugs. “Here, the methamphetamine was found under the passenger seat where McBee was sitting. [Officer] Cooley testified that McBee was moving his hands around while sitting in the vehicle and refused to comply with the officer's instructions that he keep his hands out from beneath his seat. Moreover, the methamphetamine was found in a pipe located next to a lighter, and McBee – when he was moving around in the vehicle – told the officer that he was looking for a lighter. Finally, when Cooley conducted the pat-down, he found a syringe in McBee's pocket.” Accord, Singleton v. State , 297 Ga.App. 452, 677 S.E.2d 348 (March 23, 2009) (defendant pushed bag containing drugs with his foot, fled when drug dog alerted, had large amount of cash on person). In re: D.H., 285 Ga. 51, 673 S.E.2d 191 (January 26, 2009). Evidence was sufficient to prove joint constructive possession of marijuana: “D.H. did not have actual possession of the marijuana. However, he did have joint constructive possession of the marijuana, as proved by the stipulated evidence that he had in his pocket rolling papers to smoke the marijuana, and that both he and D.I. admitted that they had just bought the marijuana and were headed to a construction site to smoke it. ‘“(J)oint constructive possession with another will sustain [an adjudication of delinquency] for possession of contraband.” [Cit.]’ Waters v. State, 280 Ga.App. 566, 567 (634 S.E.2d 508) (2006).” Jackson v. State, 295 Ga.App. 427, 671 S.E.2d 902 (January 5, 2009). Trial court properly charged jury on joint possession although other occupant of vehicle was not indicted, where defendant didn’t deny actual possession of drugs, only challenging his knowing possession. Compare Turner (November 15, 2005), below (ordinarily improper to charge on joint possession where other occupant not charged).