☢ test - Í

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).” West v. State, 288 Ga.App. 566, 654 S.E.2d 463 (November 26, 2007). 1. Venue for defendant’s prosecution for possession of marijuana, cocaine and methamphetamine was proper in county where defendant tested positive by urinalysis. “According to West, the State offered no evidence that he possessed these substances in Cherokee County before ingesting them. Under OCGA § 17-2-2(h), however, ‘if in any case it cannot be determined in what county a crime was committed, it shall be considered to have been committed in any county in which the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that it might have been committed.’ This statute applies ‘when a drug possession charge results from the detection of metabolites that can remain in a defendant’s urine two to four days after the drug was ingested.’ [fn: Pruitt v. State, 264 Ga.App. 44, 45(1) (589 S.E.2d 864) (2003). West argues that we should not rely on Pruitt because it relies, in part, on Green v. State, 260 Ga. 625, 626(1) (398 S.E.2d 360) (1990), where the Supreme Court required only slight proof of venue. While the slight evidence rule has been overturned, see Jones [ v. State, 272 Ga. 900 (537 S.E.2d 80) (2000)], Pruitt was decided under the current rule and its reasoning is sound. ] In such case, ‘[v]enue is appropriate in the county where the defendant was present immediately before being asked to provide the urine sample.’ Id.” 2. The presence of a substance in defendant’s urine “constituted circumstantial evidence that he knowingly possessed the drug. See Green, supra; see also Aldridge v. State, 237 Ga.App. 209, 212(1) (515 S.E.2d 397) (1999) (where jury finds presence of drugs in defendant’s body, it may ‘infer that [the defendant] previously possessed the drugs ingested’).” In re: C.C., 280 Ga.App. 590, 634 S.E.2d 532 (July 24, 2006). Evidence was insufficient to support juvenile court’s finding of delinquency based on possession of marijuana. Juvenile was a passenger in the back seat of the passenger side of a truck where marijuana was found in the floor of the front passenger side of the vehicle. “In this case, the only evidence was that a substance an officer said was marijuana was found in the truck in which C.C. was riding. C.C. did not own the truck. The marijuana was not found where C.C. had been sitting. Moreover, the prosecutor acknowledged that the State did not have the bag tested at the crime lab and therefore there was no testimony that the substance found in the truck had actually tested positive for marijuana. Accordingly, the evidence was insufficient to show that C.C. was in possession of marijuana beyond a reasonable doubt.” Turner v. State, 276 Ga.App. 381, 623 S.E.2d 216 (November 15, 2005). Defendant’s conviction for cocaine possession reversed, evidence demanded acquittal based on equal access rule. “‘The proper application of this rule means that, in the case of an automobile found containing contraband, no presumption arises that the driver or owner is in possession of the contraband, where there is any competent evidence that persons other than the accused have had access to or control of the vehicle for a period of time prior to the discovery of the contraband. Where there is such evidence, the burden will remain where it first came to rest, upon the state – without benefit of any presumption against the defendant – prove beyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of every other reasonable hypothesis that the accused was in possession of the contraband,’” quoting Whipple v. State , 207 Ga.App. 131)(1), 427 S.E.2d 101 (1993). “ Howren v. State, [271 Ga.App. 55, 58(4), 608 S.E.2d 653 (2004)] recently summarized this principle: ‘The equal access rule entitles a defendant to acquittal when (1) the sole evidence of his possession of contraband is his possession of a vehicle in which contraband is found; and (2) others have equal access to the area where the contraband is found or the vehicle has recently been in the possession of others.’ (Emphasis supplied.) Because these two criteria apply in the present case, we must reverse.” Defendant could have been convicted based on joint constructive possession had the other occupant of the vehicle been charged, but where, as here, “the State does not charge the other occupant of the vehicle who is contended to be in joint possession, the State bears the burden of showing that the defendant ‘was in sole constructive possession of the drugs.’ (Emphasis in original.) Reid v. State , 212 Ga.App. 787, 788 (n.1) 442 S.E.2d 852 (1994). See Warren v. State , 254 Ga.App. 52, 54(1), 561 S.E.2d 190 (2002). The State’s passing reference in its closing argument that Turner may have been in joint constructive possession of the cocaine is insufficient; formal charges against the other occupant are required. [Cits.]” Distinguished in Waters v. State , 280 Ga.App. 566, 634 S.E.2d 508 (July 14, 2006) (defendant could be