☢ test - Í

substance contained some amount of cocaine, but it does not require proof that the defendant knew the purity or weight of the substance. But a reasoned analysis of the words of the statute appears nowhere in these opinions. … Harrison asserts that Cleveland and Barr are wrongly decided and should be overruled, and he argues plausibly that the plain meaning of OCGA § 16–13–31(a)(1) requires proof of knowledge as to all of the elements of trafficking, including weight, noting that, as the United States Supreme Court explained in Flores–Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646(II), 129 S.Ct. 1886, 173 L.Ed.2d 853 (May 4, 2009), ‘courts ordinarily read a phrase in a criminal statute that introduces the elements of a crime with the word “knowingly” as applying that word to each element.’” Court of Appeals notes that “[t]he trial court did not charge the jury that the State was not required to prove knowledge of weight. With respect to the plain meaning of the statute, Harrison argues that English-speaking people commonly would understand the phrase ‘knowingly in possession of 28 grams or more of cocaine or of any mixture with a purity of 10 percent or more of cocaine’ as referring to possession with knowledge of, among other things, the weight of the cocaine or mixture. If that is so, then the charge of the trial court, which used precisely the same phrase, undoubtedly was understood by the jury to mean that the State was required to prove knowledge of, among other things, the weight.” Further, “[w]hen a trial court errs by refusing to instruct the jury as to a particular element of the crime of which the defendant is convicted, but the evidence as to that element is so overwhelming that it is highly probable that the refusal of the instruction contributed in no way to the verdict, the error is harmless. Braley v. State, 276 Ga. 47, 53(30) (572 S.E.2d 583) (2002).” Evidence of the weight and purity of the cocaine here, defendant’s possession thereof, and his experience dealing in cocaine made any error in the jury charge harmless. Aquino v. State, 308 Ga.App. 163, 706 S.E.2d 746 (March 2, 2011). Methamphetamine trafficking conviction reversed; circumstantial evidence didn’t exclude every reasonable hypothesis other than guilt. “Here, there was evidence that the locks on the house had been changed sometime in the preceding three weeks without the landlord's knowledge; Aquino was the only person arrested that day who had a key to the house; he was seen opening the door of the house earlier the same evening on the day of his arrest holding a black bag that could have been the bag that held the drugs; his driver's license was found in a bedroom; and he was in possession of a key to the car parked on the premises whose license tag was found in the basement. But all of this evidence is circumstantial with regard to Aquino's constructive possession of the contraband. … [T]here is nothing in this case linking Aquino to the drugs or manufacturing equipment in the house. There is no evidence that Aquino was holding the bag in which the drugs were found, nor testimony that there were no other similar bags on the premises. He was never seen in proximity to the drugs or drug-making equipment. The drugs were located in a drawer and not visible to the officers when they initially entered the home. No drugs were found on Aquino's person. He was neither the owner, lessee, nor an occupant of the house; in fact, papers were found in the house in several other peoples' names, including several who were not indicted. Although Aquino had a key to the house and the Corvette, he could have borrowed the keys temporarily or been asked to hold them and watch over the house. It was never shown that the key ring held other keys that fit Aquino's own home or his own car. Although his license was found in a bedroom, no clothing was found there nor any other indication that he occupied or lived in the house, nor any other incriminating evidence; in fact, his license showed a different address located nearby. Finally, there is no testimony that the odor of acetone detected in the basement was present on the first floor, the only place where Aquino was seen.” “[S]everal other people with access to the house are unaccounted for and were not charged. Like in Ridgeway, “[the] evidence combined with the presence of a key to the [premises] on the person of defendant raise grave suspicions of defendant's guilt.” Ridgeway [ v. State, 187 Ga.App. 381, 382, 370 S.E.2d 216 (1988)]. Nevertheless, the State has failed to establish that Aquino had both the power and the intention at the time of his arrest to exercise dominion or control over the drugs and failed to show that other men did not have equal access to the house and the items within it.” Thomas v. State, 306 Ga.App. 279, 701 S.E.2d 895 (September 30, 2010). Conviction for trafficking in heroin affirmed; “OCGA § 16-13-31(b) does not require that the substance containing heroin exceed any purity threshold.” Smith v. State, 302 Ga.App. 128, 690 S.E.2d 449 (January 26, 2010). At defendant’s trial for trafficking in cocaine and related charges, trial court properly admitted videotape of controlled buy conducted by confidential informant, although defendant wasn’t charged with that particular sale. “‘Even though a defendant is not charged with every crime committed during a criminal transaction, every aspect of it relevant to the crime charged may be presented at trial. This is true even if the defendant's character is incidentally placed in issue.’ (Punctuation omitted.) Carroll v. State, 202 Ga.App. 544, 547(2) (415 S.E.2d 37) (1992). … Here, the evidence ‘concerning the previous drug sales was relevant and material to the drug trafficking and firearm charges to establish [Smith's] connection to the [motel room] and to the large amount of cocaine seized from that location.’ Weems v. State, 295 Ga.App. 680, 682(2) (673 S.E.2d 50) (2009). See also Evans v. State, 288 Ga.App. 103, 108(3)(a) (653 S.E.2d 520) (2007) (‘[t]estimony that [defendant] sold ... drugs was relevant to the drug trafficking charge to establish that he was involved in dealing drugs and possessed the