☢ test - Í

narcotics cases are sufficient to establish the identification of marijuana without a scientific test, especially given absence of evidence of other similar-appearing plants and substances; presence of drug paraphernalia; and defendant’s failure to contest the identification of the substance. It is not true “that no lawful conviction could ever be obtained absent a scientific test of the substance, and to the extent that Atkinson’s argument implies that evidence must be scientifically conclusive in order to identify marijuana or other drugs, it is without merit.” Distinguishing Adkinson v. State, 236 Ga.App. 270, 271(1)(a), 511 S.E.2d 527 (1999) and Phillips v. State, 133 Ga.App. 392, 393, 210 S.E.2d 858 (1974), where convictions reversed based on testimony of state crime lab witnesses that marijuana could not be positively identified without chemical testing. See also Jones (July 1, 2004), above. Accord, Russell v. State, 243 Ga.App. 378, 532 S.E.2d 137 (March 22, 2000); Kania v. State , 280 Ga.App. 356, 634 S.E.2d 146 (July 10, 2006); In re: Q.M ., 290 Ga.App. 667, 660 S.E.2d 3 (January 2, 2008); Dulcio v. State , 297 Ga.App. 600, 677 S.E.2d 758 (April 22, 2009) (evidence was sufficient: officer’s opinion, with proper foundation, and defendant’s own references to the substance as “marijuana.”); Burg (June 3, 2009), above (citing Atkinson); Thurmond v. State , 304 Ga.App. 587, 696 S.E.2d 516 (June 25, 2010) (experienced officer’s testimony, plus fact that defendant had arranged cocaine sale on this and other occasions, was sufficient proof that substance was cocaine to authorize probation revocation); Salinas v. State , 313 Ga.App. 720, 722 S.E.2d 432 (January 26, 2012). Adkinson v. State , 236 Ga.App. 270, 511 S.E.2d 527 (February 5, 1999). “A GBI chemist testified that, although he thought the green leafy material was marijuana, he did not test it, so he could not testify beyond a reasonable doubt that it was marijuana. Additional opinion testimony was properly allowed regarding the detectives’ beliefs that the substance was marijuana; however, no scientifically conclusive evidence was presented. In fact, one narcotics investigator testified that there are a lot of leafy substances that look like marijuana but are not marijuana. Based on the evidence presented, Robert Adkinson’s conviction of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute cannot stand. See Phillips v. State, 133 Ga.App. 392, 393, 210 S.E.2d 858 (1974) (sheriff’s testimony that he thought plants were marijuana was insufficient to support possession of marijuana conviction especially in light of expert’s testimony that marijuana plant is similar in appearance to other hemp plants).” YYYYY. SUFFICIENCY Daughtie v. State, 297 Ga. 261, 773 S.E.2d 263 (June 1, 2015). Malice murder and related convictions affirmed, but evidence was insufficient to support conviction for theft by receiving stolen gun. “‘Knowledge that a gun was stolen cannot be inferred even when defendant bought a gun on the street at a reduced price, [Cits.], or when the gun was labeled for law enforcement use. [Cit.]’ Stacey [ v. State, 292 Ga. 838, 840 (741 S.E.2d 881) (2013)]. Nor can such knowledge be inferred when ‘there is only evidence that [defendant] found a gun that had been reported stolen.’ Id.” Rejects State’s argument that jury could have found that defendant knew the gun was stolen by disbelieving his testimony. “If the State were correct that jury disbelief of a testifying defendant could sustain a conviction without anything more, it would render appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence meaningless in any case in which the defendant exercised his right to testify,” citing United States v. McCarrick, 294 F3d 1286, 1293 (11 th Cir., 2002), and distinguishing Ferguson v. State, 307 Ga.App. 232, 235–236 (704 S.E.2d 470) (2010) (disbelief of defendant’s testimony may support a guilty verdict in combination with other evidence). Kar v. State, 318 Ga.App. 379, 733 S.E.2d 387 (October 18, 2012). Convictions for possession of methamphetamine and related offenses affirmed. “The State presented direct evidence that Kar possessed methamphetamine in the watch pocket of his pants at the time he was arrested by Officer Harper. Kar argues, however, that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to exclude his reasonable hypothesis that the pants in which the methamphetamine was discovered belonged to another individual, and therefore, he did not knowingly possess the methamphetamine. Nevertheless, ‘it is not necessary that the ... evidence exclude every other hypothesis except that of guilt, but only reasonable inferences and hypotheses. It was for the jury to decide whether all reasonable hypotheses have been excluded.’ (Punctuation omitted.) Pecina v. State, 274 Ga. 416, 419(2) (554 S.E.2d 167) (2001). Kar presented his hypothesis to the jury, and the jury rejected it.” Roberts v. State, 313 Ga.App. 849, 723 S.E.2d 73 (February 1, 2012). Rape conviction affirmed; victim’s testimony that she struggled and told defendant “no” and “stop” was sufficient to establish that intercourse was forcible. Citing “ Duran v. State, 274 Ga.App. 876, 878(1) (619 S.E.2d 388) (2005) (testimony of victim about forcible intercourse was sufficient to sustain conviction for rape).” Durrence v. State, 307 Ga.App. 817, 706 S.E.2d 180 (February 11, 2011). Child molestation convictions affirmed; “‘[t]here is no requirement that the [s]tate call more witnesses than it needs to present its case.’ (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Leatherwood v. State, 212 Ga.App. 342, 343(3) (441 S.E.2d 813) (1994).”