Cooper v. State
315 Ga. App. 773
Ga. Ct. App.2012Background
- Three uniform officers patrolling an apartment complex approached Cooper near Building 15 for suspected drug activity.
- Cooper was found with marijuana, ten small bags of marijuana, a larger bag of marijuana, a bag with seven pills, empty baggies, cash, a joint, and a cell phone.
- Cooper admitted possessing weed and ecstasy-related substances and claimed he would sell drugs to make money; he also stated the pills were in fact ecstasy and that he obtained drugs from a dealer in the same building.
- A forensic chemist identified one pill as N-Benzylpiperazine (BZP), a Schedule I substance; two small bags tested positive for marijuana; total marijuana weight was 6.85 grams.
- Cooper testified he planned to use all drugs personally, purchased marijuana and pills from Daytona in Building 15, and used a dealer’s scale to divide marijuana into bags.
- The jury convicted Cooper of possession of BZP (a Schedule I controlled substance) and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge of chemical identity | Cooper did not know he possessed BZP | Knowledge of chemical identity is required; he believed it was ecstasy | Knowledge issue for jury; conviction affirmed |
| Lack of distributive intent evidence | Evidence shows personal use, not distribution | Circumstantial factors support intent to distribute | Sufficient circumstantial evidence supported intent to distribute |
Key Cases Cited
- Duvall v. State, 289 Ga. 540 (2011) (knowledge of chemical identity required for possession)
- Serna v. State, 308 Ga. App. 518 (2011) (knowledge and possession may be proven by circumstantial evidence)
- Sullivan v. State, 277 Ga. App. 738 (2006) (jury may determine what evidence to believe)
- Williams v. State, 303 Ga. App. 222 (2010) (lack of bright-line rule; distribution can be inferred from circumstances)
- Rutledge v. State, 224 Ga. App. 666 (1997) (circumstantial evidence supports possession with intent to distribute)
- Gremillion v. State, 233 Ga. App. 393 (1998) (evidence including scales and packaging supports distribution intent)
- Mohamed v. State, 314 Ga. App. 181 (2012) (distinguishes cases based on factual context of knowledge of substances)