☢ test - Í

Tanner arrested all three passengers for possession of marijuana,” including defendant. “ Circumstances showing an intent to exercise control over the drugs include a defendant’s attempts to flee or elude police; inconsistent explanations by the defendant for her behavior; the presence of significant amounts of contraband and drug paraphernalia in plain view; the defendant’s possession of large amounts of cash, other indicia of the sale of drugs, or drug-related paraphernalia; evidence that the defendant was under the influence of drugs; or drug residue found on the defendant. See, e.g., Hodges [ v. State, 277 Ga.App. 174, 175-176 (626 S.E.2d 133) (2006)]; Moody v. State, 232 Ga.App. 499, 501(1) (502 S.E.2d 323) (1998); Francis v. State, 231 Ga.App. 112, 113(1) (497 S.E.2d 827) (1998). The evidence shows no such circumstances in this case. Specifically, there was no evidence that Kier was uncooperative, attempted to flee police, behaved erratically, or appeared to be under the influence of drugs. Sergeant Tanner testified that the evidence indicated that the juvenile sitting in the front passenger seat had rolled the marijuana cigarette. Sergeant Tanner further admitted that while marijuana residue was found on the floor and on the front passenger seat, no such residue was found in the area near Kier, on her seat, or on her person, and that Kier possessed no drug paraphernalia.” Birkbeck v. State, 292 Ga.App. 424, 665 S.E.2d 354 (June 18, 2008). “Because the [pornographic] material in question was found in Birkbeck’s bedroom and on his computer, there is a rebuttable presumption that he possessed it. See Jackson v. State, 271 Ga.App. 278, 283(3) (609 S.E.2d 207) (2005).” Williams v. State, 292 Ga.App. 892, 666 S.E.2d 18 (June 18, 2008). Evidence was sufficient to support finding that defendant was in possession of drugs found on the route of his flight from officers, near where bystanders indicated they saw him throw something: “‘In previous cases, this court upheld convictions where the defendant fled from police officers and then the officers found drugs thrown on the ground near the defendant's path. Wilburn v. State, 278 Ga.App. 76(1) (628 S.E.2d 174) (2006); Grier v. State, 273 Ga.App. 517(1) (615 S.E.2d 586) (2005); Dodson v. State, 244 Ga.App. 94 (534 S.E.2d 815) (2000).’ (Citations and footnotes omitted.) Riggins v. State, 281 Ga.App. 266, 268 (635 S.E.2d 867) (2006).” 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.” Hitchcock v. State, 291 Ga.App. 455, 662 S.E.2d 155 (April 21, 2008). Evidence was sufficient to show defendant’s knowing possession of marijuana shipped to him, although he hadn’t opened package: “Hitchcock, who could see on the external address label from whence the large package came, took possession of the package addressed to him at his rented mailbox and told the facility manager that the package contained Christmas presents. However, just before the package was opened at the police station and its contents revealed, he suddenly reversed fields and claimed that the package was not his, showing his guilty knowledge of its illegal contents. The evidence sufficed to sustain the verdict. See [ Perkins v. State, 244 Ga.App. 412, 416-419 (535 S.E.2d 802) (2000)]. Compare Sandoval v. State, 260 Ga.App. 61, 65-66(4) (579 S.E.2d 75) (2003) (evidence insufficient where absent defendant did not receive package of drugs delivered to his residence addressed to someone else); Luke v. State, 230 Ga.App. 712, 714-715(3) (497 S.E.2d 376) (1998), vacated in part on other grounds, 236 Ga.App. 543 (512 S.E.2d 39) (1999) (no evidence that son who signed for package addressed to his father knew of package’s contents; evidence against son insufficient).” Accord, Belcher (January 13, 2010), above. Coney v. State, 290 Ga.App. 364, 659 S.E.2d 768 (March 19, 2008). In defendant’s prosecution for possession of cocaine