☢ test - Í

Summerville v. State, 332 Ga.App. 617, 774 S.E.2d 190 (June 26, 2015). Marijuana trafficking conviction affirmed. Evidence supported finding that defendant “knowingly” possessed more than 10 pounds of marijuana: “the evidence shows that Summerville refused to provide [driver] Brown with driving directions , he met an unidentified man at a gas station, and he followed that man to a house, where he retrieved something from the house and placed it into the trunk of Brown's vehicle . Additionally, Summerville's trip was brief , as he left Birmingham at around 7:30 p.m., stopped in Atlanta only to meet this unidentified male, and then began the return trip to Birmingham after retrieving marijuana from this individual. See Calixte v. State, 197 Ga.App. 723, 724(2), 399 S.E.2d 490 (1990) (generally, drug traffickers have a short turnaround time on round-trip travel). The marijuana found in the trunk of the car was shrink wrapped and weighed approximately 21 pounds, more than twice the amount of the 10 pounds required to constitute trafficking . See former OCGA § 16–13–31(c); see also Freeman [ v. State, 329 Ga.App. 429, 432-433(1), 765 S.E.2d 631 (2014)] (the fact that drug quantity was almost twice the trafficking threshold was a significant factor in showing the defendant's knowledge of drug quantity). Moreover, when the police officer activated his patrol lights, Summerville asked Brown whether to stop. When Brown responded that he should stop because they could hide the small amount of marijuana, Summerville informed Brown that he had more than just a small bag of marijuana in the car. Based on these circumstances, the jury was authorized to conclude that Summerville had knowledge that the recovered marijuana weighed more than ten pounds.” Accord, Brown (November 18, 2015), above. Lopez-Vasquez v. State, 331 Ga.App. 570, 771 S.E.2d 218 (March 26, 2015). Methamphetamine trafficking and related convictions affirmed; evidence was sufficient to show defendant’s possession. “Here, the evidence demonstrated that Lopez–Vasquez lived at the house where the methamphetamine was found, that he was present at the scene when the drugs were discovered, and that the methamphetamine residue was found in the kitchen, and methamphetamine oil in the garage, both of which were common areas over which a resident might exercise control. The State was not required to show that Lopez–Vasquez was in sole or actual possession of the methamphetamine, rather, that he was in joint constructive possession of the contraband. Cochran [ v. State, 300 Ga.App. 92, 94-95(1), 684 S.E.2d 136 (2009), overruled in part on other grounds by Hamm v. State, 294 Ga. 791, 795(2), 756 S.E.2d 507 (2014)]; Kahn v. State, 235 Ga.App. 229, 231(1)(b), 509 S.E.2d 137 (1998) (while evidence that the defendant-owner or lessee shared premises with another does not demand a conviction, it may authorize the jury to find that the defendant was in at least joint possession of the contraband). Moreover, the evidence showed that Lopez–Vasquez was more than merely present at the scene. In addition to showing that he lived at the residence in question, the evidence also demonstrated that Lopez–Vasquez knew that large quantities of methamphetamine were present in the residence and actively participated in guarding the methamphetamine in exchange for monetary benefit.” Scott v. State, 331 Ga.App. 395, 771 S.E.2d 93 (March 20, 2015). Evidence supported finding that defendant knowingly possessed trafficking amount of cocaine. “The evidence showed that Scott had extensive experience selling drugs and that the residence he rented at 307 East Jenkins Street was primarily used as a site for drug distribution. Even excluding the smaller quantities of cocaine that were not tested for purity, the cocaine found there weighed substantially more than double the amount specified in the trafficking statute and had a purity of 72.6 percent, which is also well over the ten percent minimum specified in the statute. Additionally, officers found a quantity of crack and powder cocaine that had already been cut down and packaged for resale, as well as a large quantity of cocaine that had not yet been readied for distribution. Officers also found the tools necessary to cut, weigh, and package the drugs, including razor blades, a set of digital scales, and an assortment of Ziploc type plastic bags.” Robinson v. State, 331 Ga.App. 872, 772 S.E.2d 223 (February 20, 2015). Physical precedent only. Cocaine trafficking conviction affirmed; evidence supported finding that defendant “knew that the cocaine he possessed weighed 28 grams or more.” “[T]he circumstances of the possession for which Robinson was prosecuted include Robinson's status as the driver of the car; the presence of a very large quantity of narcotics in the passenger compartment of the car; his display of nervousness during the stop; his and Holland's inconsistent statements as to where they were going; the scales found on the passenger floorboard of the car; Robinson's spontaneous admissions that he ‘f* * *ked up,’ ‘messed up,’ and ‘knew’ that he ‘shouldn't have went and picked up the drugs’; and the cocaine's weight of approximately 250 grams, or nearly ten times the minimum amount required to sustain a conviction for trafficking in the drug.” Childs v. State, 330 Ga.App. 727, 769 S.E.2d 147 (February 18, 2015). Cocaine trafficking conviction reversed; evidence didn’t support finding that defendant “had knowledge of the weight of the cocaine.” “Although the State introduced evidence that Childs possessed two bags of cocaine, one bag only appeared to contain crack cocaine. Because that substance was never tested, there is no evidence of its purity. The only confirmed substance was the powdered cocaine, which weighed 35 grams, only seven grams more than the statutory threshold.[fn] Moreover, the State could not point to a