☢ test - Í

Eubanks v. State, 239 Ga.App. 796, 522 S.E.2d 240 (September 2, 1999). Evidence supported finding that defendant was in possession of drugs found in companion’s mouth: officer encountered three people in a car in a deserted parking lot at 3:00 a.m. Each of them had a crack pipe. Front seat passenger had raw cocaine and three plastic bags of cocaine in his mouth. Defendant was in driver’s seat. “ Here police found Eubanks with a crack pipe and napkin [used to hold a hot crack pipe] in his lap. Eubanks even admitted to destroying the pipe to avoid incrimination. See Whitfield v. State, 159 Ga.App. 398, 401(9), 283 S.E.2d 627 (1981) (efforts to destroy or conceal evidence may evince intent and participation in crime). The pipe was dark and had a screen filter, indicating it was recently used for cocaine smoking. Eubanks was sweating profusely, exuded a strong odor, and was nervous, jumpy, and talkative, all of which indicated recent drug use. The raw cocaine found in the passenger's mouth was immediately available for use by as many as three people, and each occupant of the car had a crack pipe. This additional evidence connected Eubanks to the cocaine and sustained a finding of joint constructive possession.” Smith v. State, 237 Ga.App. 616, 516 S.E.2d 319 (April 12, 1999). “In light of the evidence that police had information that Smith would be in possession of nine ounces of cocaine, that Smith fled when confronted by the police, that he veered onto the roadside momentarily during the chase, that his passenger side window was open, and that police found nine ounces of cocaine by the road where Smith swerved, the jury was authorized to infer that the cocaine found on the roadside was in Smith’s possession until he abandoned it by throwing it out the car window.” SSSS. PRE-ARREST SILENCE Morrison v. State, 251 Ga.App. 161, 554 S.E.2d 190 (August 9, 2001). The State’s comments on an accused’s pre-arrest silence or failure to report a crime are more prejudicial than probative and should be disallowed in a case when a defendant is the target of a criminal investigation, see Mallory v. State , 261 Ga. 625, 409 S.E.2d 839 (1991); however, when the accused’s defense is coercion or justification, the State’s closing remarks and cross-examination questions, when consistent with an attack on the coercion or justification defense, are proper. TTTT. PREDICATE OFFENSES Cobb v. State, 283 Ga. 388, 658 S.E.2d 750 (March 17, 2008). At defendant’s trial for murder and possession of a firearm by a first offender probationer, State tendered certified copy of defendant’s prior pleas of guilty to a felony drug charge and carrying a concealed weapon. “Because the crime of carrying a concealed weapon is a misdemeanor, Cobb’s plea to that offense was not a material element of the State’s case. See Ragan v. State, 264 Ga. 190, 191-192 (442 S.E.2d 750) (1994) (because the offense of operating a motor vehicle after being declared an habitual violator is predicated on driving after being declared an habitual violator, a defendant’s prior driving offenses that caused him to be declared an habitual violator are not material to the current charge and are inadmissible to prove that he was driving after being declared an habitual violator). Accord Hester v. State, 159 Ga.App. 642, 643-644 (284 S.E.2d 659) (1981). Thus, if trial counsel had objected to the admissibility of that charge and requested its redaction, the trial court would have erred in admitting evidence of the charge. Id.” UUUU. PRIOR DIFFICULTIES Seminal case: Wall v. State, 269 Ga. 506, 500 S.E.2d 904 (1998). 1. ACTS OF DEFENDANT Lopez v. State, 332 Ga.App. 518, 773 S.E.2d 787 (June 16, 2015). Aggravated stalking conviction affirmed; no error in allowing victim to testify to prior assaults against her by defendant. “[T]his type of prior difficulties evidence is admissible in an aggravated stalking case, where the state must show that the ‘indicted act was committed for the purpose of harassment and intimidation, an essential element of stalking.’ Benton v. State, 256 Ga.App. 620, 622(2)(a), 568 S.E.2d 770 (2002).” Jones v. State, 329 Ga.App. 439, 765 S.E.2d 639 (October 30, 2014). Convictions for aggravated battery and related offenses affirmed; no error in admitting evidence of prior difficulties under pre-2013 Evidence Code, including suicide attempt by defendant. “Evidence of prior difficulties between a victim and defendant, ‘whether an assault, quarrel, or a threat,’ is generally admissible in domestic violence cases even though it may incidentally bear on the defendant's character. Appling v. State, 246 Ga.App. 556, 541 S.E.2d 129 (2000). Moreover, evidence, such as a defendant's suicide threat, that is ‘part of the res gestae of the ... incidents of prior difficulties between the parties’ is admissible. Billington v. State, 313 Ga.App. 674, 679(2)(b), 722 S.E.2d 395 (2012) (discussing the admissibility of prior difficulty evidence in domestic violence cases, including a suicide threat, in the context of an ineffective assistance claim).