☢ test - Í

the jury on the reverse of the presumption, i.e., that because he did not own the premises and did not live there, the presumption would be that the drugs were not his. The trial court properly ruled that although the requested charge was an interesting exercise in logic, no authority for such reverse presumption exists in the law. The defense conceded as much at the charge conference. Indeed, such a charge could serve only to mislead the jury. The drugs were found directly under Benson’s body in an area that had been cleared of drugs before his arrival. No presumption was necessary to show that Benson had possessed them.” Accord, Butler v. State , 294 Ga.App. 540, 669 S.E.2d 525 (November 14, 2008) (burglary defendant requested charge on presumption of possession of items found in car, which he was driving but did not own); Palencia-Barron (October 31, 2012), above (truck passenger not entitled to charge on driver’s presumed possession of drugs found in vehicle). Johnson v. State, 274 Ga.App. 282, 617 S.E.2d 252 (July 11, 2005). Reversed, State v. Johnson , 280 Ga. 511, 630 S.E.2d 377 (May 17, 2006) (see above). Collins v. State, 273 Ga.App. 598, 615 S.E.2d 646 (June 9, 2005). “Collins’s admission that the methamphetamine belonged to him, when coupled with evidence that Collins was in possession of drug paraphernalia and over $740 in currency, was sufficient to overcome any evidence of equal access. See Turner v. State, 247 Ga.App. 775, 776(1), 544 S.E.2d 765 (2001).” Jackson v. State, 271 Ga.App. 278, 609 S.E.2d 207 (January 18, 2005). Convictions for selling cocaine and related offenses affirmed; equal access defense not applicable where defendant charged with selling and delivering cocaine, not just possession. Davis v. State, 270 Ga.App. 777, 607 S.E.2d 924 (December 6, 2004). Convictions for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, and related offenses, affirmed. “[T]he equal access ‘rule, conceptually and historically, has no application where, as here, all persons allegedly having equal access to the contraband are alleged to have been in joint constructive possession of that contraband.’ (Punctuation omitted.) Brownlee v. State , 173 Ga.App. 138, 139(1) (325 S.E.2d 815) (1984).” Accord , Heller v. State , 275 Ga.App. 637, 621 S.E.2d 591 (September 28, 2005). Howren v. State, 271 Ga.App. 55, 608 S.E.2d 653 (October 13, 2004). Conviction for trafficking in methamphetamine affirmed. “Here, the equal access rule is inapplicable. The sole evidence of Howren’s guilt is not his possession of contraband located in an area where another person had equal access. The record shows that Howren had more than $3,000 in cash on his person; the leather pouch and the camouflage fanny pack were found at or near his feet; Howren behaved suspiciously as though trying to hide something; the cell phone charger in the camouflage fanny pack was the same make as that of Howren’s cell phone; the customer list found in the camouflage fanny pack was similar to the list in [co-defendant/driver’s] day planner; and Howren made some self-incriminating comments during a custodial interview. From this evidence, a rational trier of fact could have found Howren guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of trafficking. [Cit.]” Johnson v. State, 268 Ga.App. 808, 602 S.E.2d 840 (July 29, 2004). Convictions for possession of cocane and marijuana with intent to distribute affirmed. Presumption that driver of vehicle was in possession of contraband found therein was overcome by evidence “that the contraband was seized from the back seat area, where Johnson had been sitting, and that, when the police arrived, [driver] was attempting to purchase drugs from Johnson. Furthermore, [driver] informed [officer] that the seized drugs did not belong to her. Under these circumstances, the jury was authorized to find that the State rebutted any presumption that … the car’s driver, possessed the contraband.” Accord, Davis v. State , 270 Ga.App. 777, 607 S.E.2d 924 (December 6, 2004). Vance v. State, 268 Ga.App. 556, 602 S.E.2d 276 (July 15, 2004). Cocaine trafficking and related convictions affirmed. “[E]vidence showed that Vance was the sole lessee and resident of the apartment in which the drugs were found, which raised a rebuttable presumption that he possessed the drugs. [Cit..]... Vance’s testimony that two other individuals had keys to his apartment during this time and thus had ‘equal access’ to the drugs did not demand an acquittal but simply authorized the jury to find that Vance was in at least joint possession of the contraband. [Cit.]” Respress v. State, 267 Ga.App. 654, 600 S.E.2d 727 (June 2, 2004). Cocaine trafficking conviction affirmed. “Here, Respress’s possession of the vehicle was not the sole evidence of his possession of the drugs, as other evidence showed that the confidential informant arranged the purchase of the drugs from Respress only,” not his three passengers.