☢ test - Í

conveyance of certain substances used in the manufacture of controlled substances; evidence failed to show that defendant possessed or conveyed the substances. “The evidence shows that all of the items listed in the indictment were found in common areas of the house. Though Hutchins was arguably in joint possession of the items, there was no evidence that she alone possessed them or that she had the present intent to convey them because those items were also in the joint possession of the Calmeses. While it is possible that Hutchins may have had sole possession of the items in the recent past with the requisite intent to convey them to the Calmeses for the alleged illegal use, the State submitted no evidence from which the jury might reasonably draw that inference.” 11. PRESCRIPTIONS Raber v. State, 285 Ga. 251, 674 S.E.2d 884 (March 23, 2009). By a 4-3 majority, Supreme Court holds that OCGA § 16- 13-42(h), making it “unlawful for any practitioner to issue any prescription document signed in blank,” is not unconstitutionally vague for failure to define “issue.” Defendant doctor was accused of violating the code section by giving his nurse practitioner a pad of 33 pre-signed blank prescriptions. “[Defendant] argues that, because OCGA § 16- 13-41(h) does not define what a physician must do to ‘issue’ a prescription document, he did not have fair notice that providing a pre-signed blank prescription pad to a member of his medical staff in the course of her employment would subject him to prosecution for a felony offense. ” Majority disagrees, and disagrees with dissenters (Hunstein, and separately Melton, writing for Sears) who argue that “issue” means giving the document to the “ultimate user.” Majority: “Because this provision broadly includes possession of the document by any “person other than the person whose signature appears thereon,” it is completely inconsistent with exclusion of a person who is a staff member, regardless of whether she is intended to be the ultimate user herself or is instead expected to complete the document in the future at the direction of the licensed physician who employs her.” “Furthermore, subsection (h) neither mentions nor implies that the practitioner must give the document to the ‘ultimate user.’” Hunstein would find the provision void for vagueness; Melton and Sears would find the provision not vague, but not applicable to giving a document to a staff member. 12. PURCHASING MARIJUANA Johnson v. State, 296 Ga.App. 697, 675 S.E.2d 588 (March 18, 2009). Evidence supported defendant’s conviction for purchase of marijuana. “Johnson contends insufficient evidence supports her purchase of marijuana conviction because: (1) the State failed to prove the quantity of marijuana and (2) she did not pay for it at the time she took possession. We disagree. First, the quantity of marijuana purchased is not an element of the crime of purchasing marijuana. See OCGA § 16-13-30(j)(1) (unlawful for person to purchase marijuana); cf. State v. Jackson, 271 Ga. 5, 6 (515 S.E.2d 386) (1999). Second, the purchase of marijuana can be established by proof of a promise to pay for it. Cf. Jackson, supra, 271 Ga. at 5.” Conviction reversed, however, for failure to charge jury on lesser offense of misdemeanor possession. 13. SELLING DRUGS Ware v. State, 308 Ga.App. 24, 707 S.E.2d 111 (January 26, 2011). Conviction for sale of cocaine affirmed; “‘The theory that one may act as a conduit or procuring agent of the purchaser and thereby escape culpability as a seller has been considered and rejected by this Court.’ (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Gay v. State, 221 Ga.App. 263, 265(1)(a), 471 S.E.2d 49 (1996) (‘Evidence that [defendant] approached [undercover agent], asked what he wanted, and then introduced [the agent] to [a third man], who actually passed the contraband and collected the money is sufficient proof that defendant is guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, as a party to the crime of selling cocaine.’). See, e.g., Little v. State, 230 Ga.App. 803, 805(1), 498 S.E.2d 284 (1998).” Rogers v. State, 298 Ga.App. 895, 681S.E.2d 693 (July 10, 2009). Where date was material element of offense of sale of drugs, trial court erred in failing to answer jury’s question as to when a sale occurs. “Because there was evidence in the record from which the jury might have concluded that the State failed to prove a completed sale on the date alleged in the indictment, the trial court erred by failing to recharge the jury that the State was required to prove that the sale was completed on the material date alleged in the indictment.” Madge v. State, 245 Ga.App. 848, 538 S.E.2d 907 (September 11, 2000). Evidence supported conviction for selling marijuana where defendant helped undercover officers negotiate purchase from others. 14. SELLING DRUGS WITHIN 1000 FEET OF PUBLIC HOUSING PROJECT/PUBLIC PARK/SCHOOL Williams v. State, 332 Ga.App. 546, 774 S.E.2d 126 (June 17, 2015). Various drug convictions affirmed; evidence was sufficient to prove that offense of possession with intent to distribute occurred within 1000 feel of a public housing