☢ test - Í

most of the objects and substances needed to ‘prepare’ or ‘process’ methamphetamine by the red phosphorous technique, a rational trier of fact, applying OCGA § 16-13-21(15)’s broad definition of manufacture, could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was ‘preparing’ or ‘processing’ that drug. Contrary to Murrell’s argument, the evidence was sufficient to support reasonable inferences of ‘preparation’ and ‘processing,’ and thus of manufacturing, even though the evidence does not show that he had the completed drug or all of the items needed to manufacture the completed drug. Murrell’s conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine is affirmed.” Ely v. State, 241 Ga.App. 896, 528 S.E.2d 532 (January 20, 2000). Circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support conviction for manufacturing and possessing marijuana plants found growing in buckets on property adjoining defendant’s residence. “Investigator Couey testified that there were several trails coming from behind Ely's home that went in different directions into the area where the dogs and plants were located. He also testified that the whole area was beaten down where the dogs were allowed to run but grown up on either side of the dogs and plants. He never determined who owned the property where the dogs and the marijuana were located.” Defendant admitted the dogs were his, but denied owning or knowing about the marijuana. The plants were visible “from the back of Ely's mobile home and estimated that they were found approximately 20-25 yards from the back porch,” but were separated from the next nearest neighbor’s house by a barbed wire fence and a briar patch. “‘[T]he “beaten path” doctrine ... allows connection of contraband found in close vicinity to a house so as to authorize rational jurors to conclude beyond [a] reasonable doubt that the primary resident of that house owned or had control over the contraband. (Cits.)’ [Cit.] Blitch v. State, 188 Ga.App. 487, 488-489, 373 S.E.2d 227 (1988). The fact that the contraband is found on property adjacent to the defendant's property will not preclude a conviction for possession of the contraband. Childers v. State, 218 Ga.App. 457(1), 462 S.E.2d 412 (1995). Given the proximity of the plants to Ely's residence and the placement of the vicious dogs, the jury was authorized to conclude that Ely owned or had control over the marijuana plants.” 5. POSSESSION OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES See also EVIDENCE – POSSESSION, and EVIDENCE- SUBSTANCES, IDENTIFICATION OF, above Holland v. State, 334 Ga.App. 600, 780 S.E.2d 40 (November 17, 2015). Physical precedent only. Evidence didn’t support convictions for cocaine trafficking and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. Police search of residence revealed drugs, baggies and scales hidden in master bedroom and attic. Defendant was seen briefly from outside the house in a room which may have been the master bedroom, but wasn’t seen in actual possession of the drugs, was not alleged to use that as his bedroom or keep his personal belongings there, nor was he alleged to be the owner or renter of the house. “Because the State failed to show that a presumption of possession applies, and failed to adduce any evidence to connect Holland to the drugs found in the master bedroom and the attic, the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions for trafficking in cocaine and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. Mitchell v. State, [268 Ga. 592, 593, 492 S.E.2d 204 (1997)]; see Cobarrubias–Garcia v. State, [316 Ga.App. 787, 790- 91, 730 S.E.2d 455 (2012)] (Evidence of possession of drugs was insufficient, where the contraband was located hidden in the chimney, inside the wall in two bathrooms, and inside one bedroom, when the defendant was found standing near the front door, although clothes the defendant had worn were found in another bedroom.); Aquino v. State, 308 Ga.App. 163, 164–168(1), 706 S.E.2d 746 (2011) (Evidence of possession of methamphetamine was insufficient, where the contraband was located inside a locked house in a black bag in a drawer when the defendant was found standing in the driveway, even though the defendant’s driver’s license was found inside in a bedroom, the defendant had on his person a key to the house and to a car parked there whose tag was inside the house, and the defendant had been seen opening the door of the house while holding a black bag.).” Reyes v. State, 334 Ga.App. 552, 780 S.E.2d 674 (November 16, 2015). Evidence supported defendant’s convictions for possession of heroin and cocaine. “Here, the jury had sufficient evidence to conclude that Reyes was a party to the crime of possession of the contraband. He drove and inspected the vehicle in a way that suggested he was worried about being followed; he was present when the two suitcases were transferred to the Jeep; and the suitcases were in plain view in the vehicle as he drove away from the Chevron. Thus, the State’s evidence showed more than Reyes’ mere presence in the Jeep or spacial proximity to the contraband; it raised a reasonable inference that Reyes had the intent to exercise control over the contraband.” Lehman v. State, 334 Ga.App. 324, 779 S.E.2d 101 (November 3, 2015). Evidence didn’t support defendant’s convictions for possession of methamphetamine and oxycodone. Lehman was a passenger in a truck driven by Nobles. Deputy found the drugs in “a container on top of a pile of clothes on the back seat floorboard.” “A finding of constructive possession must be based upon some connection between the defendant and the contraband other than spatial proximity or mere presence in the vehicle where the contraband is found. [Cit.] The only evidence of Lehman’s constructive possession