☢ test - Í

was not formally tendered as an expert, the trial court tacitly or impliedly accepted him as such when he allowed the officer to testify concerning his opinion in the areas of narcotics possession and distribution. See Barber [ v. State, 317 Ga.App. 600, 605(3), 732 S.E.2d 125 (2012)] (police officer may give opinion as to whether the amount or value of the contraband is consistent with distribution, provided the State lays a foundation for the opinion); Hughes [ v. State, 297 Ga.App. 217, 218, 676 S.E.2d 852 (2009)].” Williams v. State, 298 Ga. 208, 779 S.E.2d 304 (November 2, 2015). Felony murder convictions affirmed; no plain error in jury charges on possession of cocaine and possession with intent to distribute. Court wasn’t required to “ define the terms ‘deliver’ or ‘delivery,’ as defined by OCGA § 16–1321(7), nor the term ‘distribute,’ as defined by OCGA § 16– 13–21(11).” Citing Boring (April 7, 2010), below. Ahmed v. State, 322 Ga.App. 154, 744 S.E.2d 345 (June 10, 2013). Conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute affirmed; evidence was sufficient to show constructive possession. “Ahmed leased the apartment at issue, and, as the lessee, he was issued keys to the apartment and its storage shed. That he and Vance were roommates is undisputed. Such evidence was sufficient to authorize the jury to conclude that he and Vance were in joint constructive possession of the cocaine and marijuana. … Having leased the apartment, Ahmed had access to all the contraband seized in the common areas thereof and its locked storage shed. Furthermore, the cocaine and marijuana at issue were clearly not held for personal use, both in large quantities and bagged for apparent resale. See, e.g., Ryan v. State, 277 Ga.App. 490, 493(3), 627 S.E.2d 128 (2006).” Horne v. State, 318 Ga.App. 484, 733 S.E.2d 487 (October 25, 2012). Conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute affirmed. “As reflected in the trial court's response to the jury's questions, OCGA § 16–13–30(b) does not specify a legal weight limit for the offense of drug possession with the intent to distribute. Rather, various kinds of additional evidence may be considered as proof of intent to distribute, including circumstances regarding the packaging of the contraband and expert testimony that the amount of contraband possessed was consistent with larger amounts usually held for sale rather than personal use. See Haywood v. State, 301 Ga.App. 717, 719(1) (689 S.E.2d 82) (2009); Burse [ v. State, 232 Ga.App. 729, 730(1) (503 S.E.2d 638) (1998)]. No error has been shown in the trial court's response to the question posed by the jury.” Accord, Thomas v. State , 321 Ga.App. 214, 741 S.E.2d 298 (April 3, 2013) (intent to distribute could be inferred from “the way Thomas concealed the drugs, the way the drugs were packaged for street sale, the amount of drugs on Thomas' person, and the fact that Thomas lacked a device for using the drugs.”). Bailey v. State, 316 Ga.App. 78, 728 S.E.2d 747 (May 30, 2012). Conviction for cocaine possession with intent to distribute affirmed. “‘No bright line rule exists regarding the amount or type of evidence sufficient to support a conviction for possession with intent to distribute. Intent to distribute may be shown in many ways, including through evidence of the manner in which the drugs are packaged, the amount of drugs, and the amount and denominations of cash.’ (Footnotes omitted.) Harper v. State, 285 Ga.App. 261, 265(1)(b), 645 S.E.2d 741 (2007).” Defendant here was found in an apartment with two others, various small amounts of cocaine, and plastic bag corners used to package and sell illegal drugs. Cooper v. State, 315 Ga.App. 773, 728 S.E.2d 289 (May 3, 2012). Evidence supported defendant’s conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. “Evidence that Cooper used a dealer's scale to distribute marijuana into individual packages of similar weight, his possession of a larger bag of marijuana along with empty individual plastic bags, his possession of a total amount of 6.85 grams of loose marijuana, his admission that he would do whatever it takes to make money, and the officer's observation of what might have been an interrupted sale transaction combined together adequately support his intent to distribute conviction. See Williams v. State, 303 Ga.App. 222, 224–225(2) (692 S.E.2d 820) (2010); Rutledge v. State, 224 Ga.App. 666, 668(1) (482 S.E.2d 403) (1997).” Jackson v. State, 314 Ga.App. 272, 724 S.E.2d 9 (February 22, 2012). Evidence supported defendant’s conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. “The marijuana was packaged into three individual bags and had a street value of over $1,000. Significantly, the marijuana was found with a trafficking amount of MDMA and a loaded weapon, constituting evidence of involvement in the drug trade. See Causey v. State, 274 Ga.App. 506, 508 (618 S.E.2d 127) (2005) (affirming conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute based upon evidence that defendant also was in possession of large quantities of another illegal drug and a weapon); Pitts [ v. State, 260 Ga.App. 553, 557(3) (580 S.E.2d 618) (2003)] (affirming conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute based upon evidence that 28 grams of marijuana divided into five individual packages was found with a large, distribution amount of another illegal drug).” Distinguishing Vines (March 10, 2009), below: in Vines , “the officers had immediately