Dockery v. State, 308 Ga. App. 502

Dockery was convicted in Lumpkin County Superior Court of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute.
Officer Selaine used a confidential informant to purchase narcotics from Dockery's residence at 1109 Blackburn Road on May 4, 2006.
Rollins told the informant Dockery would have methamphetamine that day but had not shown up; Rollins did not know if Dockery would return with meth.
On May 15, 2006, a search of Dockery's home yielded 21.38 grams of methamphetamine in Dockery's pocket and $732 in cash, with additional drug paraphernalia found inside.
Rollins pleaded guilty; the defense presented witnesses claiming Rollins lived at the home and that Rollins deposited meth into Dockery's pocket before fleeing.
The jury found Dockery guilty of possession with intent to distribute; Dockery challenged several trial rulings on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sequential jury charge was improper	Dockery contends the instruction was improper.	State argues the charge was permissible as long as unanimity on the greater offense was not required.	Sequential instruction permitted; did not require unanimity on greater offense.
Whether the trial court should have charged equal access	Dockery sought a doctrine of equal access instruction for constructive possession.	State argued actual possession; equal access not warranted.	Court did not abuse discretion; equal access not warranted.
Whether Rollins's statement was permissible as conspiracy evidence	Dockery argues Rollsins's statements were improperly admitted.	State contends there was sufficient circumstantial evidence of conspiracy to admit the statements.	Evidence of conspiracy properly admitted; statements admissible.
Whether the recorded statement during deliberations violated the continuing witness rule	Dockery claims the tape went out with the jury contrary to evidentiary rules.	State argues any error was harmless given overwhelming evidence.	Harmless error; likely did not contribute to the verdict.
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to closing argument	Ineffective assistance for failing to object to improper closing.	State asserts curative instruction mitigated prejudice and outcome unlikely different.	No ineffective assistance established; united with curative instruction and evidence.

Cantrell v. State, 266 Ga. 700, 469 S.E.2d 660 (1996) (unanimity not required for greater-offense deliberation before lesser offense)
Armstrong v. State, 277 Ga. 122, 587 S.E.2d 5 (2003) (instruction on lesser included offenses permissible without requiring unanimity on greater offense)
Waddell v. State, 277 Ga.App. 772, 627 S.E.2d 840 (2006) (review of preservation and harmless-error considerations in closing arguments)
Camphor v. State, 272 Ga. 408, 529 S.E.2d 121 (2000) (framework for lesser-included offenses and instruction structure)
Davis v. State, 304 Ga.App. 355, 696 S.E.2d 381 (2010) (evidence and conspiracy-related hearsay admissibility considerations)
Brooks v. State, 281 Ga. 14, 635 S.E.2d 723 (2006) (conspiracy and circumstantial evidence principles)
Morrow v. State, 229 Ga.App. 242, 493 S.E.2d 616 (1997) (harmless-error standard for evidentiary rulings)
Summage v. State, 248 Ga.App. 559, 546 S.E.2d 910 (2001) (trial court discretion to allow rehearing of recorded statements in open court)
Sagenich v. State, 255 Ga.App. 663, 566 S.E.2d 327 (2002) (continuing witness rule and related evidentiary considerations)