☢ test - Í

that the defendant acts as if the substance is marijuana or treats it like marijuana or, as here, refers to it as marijuana. The expert opinions of the officers – based on visual observation, and sometimes feel or smell – plus that circumstantial evidence is enough, even absent conclusive scientific testing. Jones’s statement to [officer] that he was ‘putting out a joint’ coupled with the opinion testimony in this case supports the jury’s verdict.” Accord, Kessinger (June 23, 2009), above; Salinas v. State , 313 Ga.App. 720, 722 S.E.2d 432 (January 26, 2012). Castillo v. State, 263 Ga.App. 772, 589 S.E.2d 325, (October 24, 2003). “Castillo’s contention that the State only proved possession of 40.8 grams is based on the failure of the State's expert to test the entire 248 grams. But, we have held that the testing of representative samples is sufficient to support a conviction for trafficking in the entire amount .” Accord, Maldonado v. State , 284 Ga.App. 26, 643 S.E.2d 316 (March 7, 2007); Salinas v. State , 313 Ga.App. 720, 722 S.E.2d 432 (January 26, 2012); Buckner v. State , 321 Ga.App. 715, 742 S.E.2d 528 (May 3, 2013). McDaniel v. State, 263 Ga.App. 625, 588 S.E.2d 812 (October 15, 2003). Testimony identifying a drug by its common name (here, MDMA) is sufficient without asking specifically about the chemical name, especially where, as here, defendant does not contest the identity of the substance at trial. Cargile v. State, 261 Ga.App. 319, 582 S.E.2d 473 (April 24, 2003). “The State’s expert could not testify beyond a reasonable doubt that the substance found in Cargile’s bedroom was marijuana, and no scientifically conclusive evidence was presented to identify the substance. Therefore, this evidence was insufficient to sustain Cargile’s conviction for marijuana possession. Adkinson v. State, 236 Ga.App. 270, 271(1)(a) (511 S.E.2d 527) (1999). The State did produce scientifically conclusive evidence, however, through the testimony of a forensic toxicologist, that Cargile had metabolites of marijuana in his urine, which constitutes circumstantial evidence that he possessed marijuana. Green v. State, 260 Ga. 625, 626(1) (398 S.E.2d 360) (1990). We conclude that this evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find Cargile guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of marijuana possession.” Urinalysis was relevant to the issue of possession because the crime lab technician testified that marijuana metabolites would remain in the urine for only 3-6 hours after use. “When transactions involving other crimes and the alleged bad character of [defendant] are so connected in time and event as to be part of the same transaction as that for which the accused is being tried, they are admissible as a clear exception to the general rule of inadmissibility of other transactions. The allegedly separate events are admissible in evidence when they are part of a continuous course of conduct, closely connected in time, place and manner of commission.” Dugger v. State, 260 Ga.App. 843, 581 S.E.2d 655 (April 11, 2003). Evidence that the substance was cocaine consisted primarily of the defendants’ own admissions. “‘This evidence alone is not sufficient to authorize a finding that defendant is guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the crime charged,’” quoting Johnson v. State , 205 Ga.App. 760, 423 S.E.2d 702 (1992), but is sufficient for proof by a preponderance of evidence needed to revoke probation. Chambers v. State, 260 Ga.App. 48, 579 S.E.2d 71 (March 3, 2003). Conviction for possession of marijuana reversed. “Given the exceedingly specific and scientific definition of this drug, the instances in which the State could exclude reasonable doubt without performing conclusive, scientific tests of the suspected marijuana would be very rare.” Distinguishes Atkinson (March 17, 2000), below , based on presence of other circumstantial evidence (drug paraphernalia) in that case. But note, there was also cocaine and drug paraphernalia in this case. Biggest difference is lab tech’s testimony here that testing is needed for positive id. of marijuana, and officer’s admission that other substances can look like marijuana. Note also that Atkinson is a full court opinion. Distinguished by Jones (July 1, 2004), and Willingham (February 13, 2009), above. Fuller v. State, 256 Ga.App. 840, 570 S.E.2d 43 (July 30, 2002). Defendant’s conviction for marijuana possession reversed for insufficient evidence. The conviction was based on seeds found in defendant’s coat; although no tests were conducted on the seeds, the arresting officer testified that he could affirmatively identify them as marijuana based on their shape, color and smell. An evidence technician, qualified as an expert in marijuana identification, testified that he could not identify the seeds, as his tests only cover leafy material. He had no particular training on seeds, and said, “that the only real way to tell if the seeds were marijuana was to plant them and see what grew.” Because the “expert’s” testimony contradicts the non-expert officer’s identification, the evidence cannot be said to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the defendant. Atkinson v. State, 243 Ga.App. 570, 531 S.E.2d 743 (March 17, 2000). Whole court opinion. Defendant’s conviction of misdemeanor marijuana possession affirmed; officer’s specialized training in narcotics and extensive experience in