☢ test - Í

a known drug dealer. Accord, Lipsey v State , 287 Ga.App. 835, 652 S.E.2d 870 (October 15, 2007); Prather v. State , 293 Ga.App. 312, 667 S.E.2d 113 (August 15, 2008); Abercrombie v. State , 297 Ga.App. 522, 677 S.E.2d 719 (April 16, 2009) (defendant was passenger in vehicle, not owner or driver, so no presumption of possession arose); Grimes v. State , 303 Ga.App. 808, 695 S.E.2d 294 (April 22, 2010); Davis v. State , 304 Ga.App. 355, 696 S.E.2d 381 (June 8, 2010). Smith v. State, 278 Ga.App. 315, 628 S.E.2d 722 (March 21, 2006). Trial court erred in denying defendant directed verdict on cocaine possession charge; testimony established that defendant’s son was seen throwing pill bottle containing cocaine in neighboring yard when police approached defendant’s residence . “[W]hile Smith occupied the residence, others had equal access to and control of both the residence and the area surrounding it. Two of Smith’s teenage children lived with him, and an adult daughter lived next door. At the time the search warrant was executed, another of Smith’s daughters and her boyfriend were visiting and were outside Smith’s residence.” 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.]” Accord, Bodiford v. State , 305 Ga.App. 655, 700 S.E.2d 648 (August 24, 2010) (State couldn’t rely on joint possession without charging other occupant of vehicle). Distinguished in Waters v. State , 280 Ga.App. 566, 634 S.E.2d 508 (July 14, 2006) (defendant could be convicted of joint constructive possession where both defendants were charged); Jackson (January 5, 2009), above (proper to charge on joint possession despite failure to indict other occupant where defendant didn’t deny actual possession, only challenging his knowing possession) ; Peacock v. State , 301 Ga.App. 873, 689 S.E.2d 853 (January 6, 2010) ( citing Waters ). This line of cases overruled, Maddox v. State , 322 Ga.App. 811, 746 S.E.2d 280 (July 11, 2013). Heller v. State, 275 Ga.App. 637, 621 S.E.2d 591 (September 28, 2005). “‘A connection can be made between a defendant and contraband found in his presence by evidence which shows that the contraband was discovered on premises occupied and controlled by the defendant with no right of equal access and control in others. Such occupation and control may be inferred when the accused is the owner or tenant of the premises upon which the illicit drugs are discovered. (Citations omitted.) Morris v. State, 161 Ga.App. 141, 143-144(5) (288 S.E.2d 102) (1982).’ Carthern v. State, 238 Ga.App. 670, 672 (519 S.E.2d 490) (1999), aff'd 272 Ga. 378 (529 S.E.2d 617) (2000).” Accord, Peacock v. State , 301 Ga.App. 873, 689 S.E.2d 853 (January 6, 2010). Stovall v. State, 275 Ga.App. 244, 620 S.E.2d 462 (August 25, 2005). “[Co-defendant’s] testimony that Stovall purchased the methamphetamine and kept it in his vehicle, combined with the physical evidence seized from Stovall’s vehicle, provided sufficient evidence upon which the jury could convict Stovall of the charged offense.” Thus, “Stovall’s ownership or possession of the vehicle containing the seized methamphetamine was not the sole evidence introduced by the State to establish Stovall’s guilt.” Benson v. State, 275 Ga.App. 180, 620 S.E.2d 441 (August 18, 2005). After officers executed search warrant at a residence, defendant (who did not reside in the house) arrived there. Officers placed him on the ground, then found drugs on the floor where he had lain. Area had previously been cleared of drugs. Held, trial court properly refused to give equal access charge, as defendant was not the owner of the premises. “ Benson then requested that the trial court instruct