Gilbert Alexander Hill v. State, A21A0351

Background

Gilbert Hill was convicted of trafficking heroin and fentanyl, possession with intent to distribute, possession of other controlled substances, and possession of a firearm by a felon; he appealed for insufficiency of the evidence.
Law enforcement executed a search of a mobile home after knocking and announcing; they obtained a front-door key from Brittany Grizzle (found at a neighbor) and used it to enter.
Officers conducted an initial and then a “deep clear,” during which Hill was found hiding fully clothed behind a shower curtain in the bathroom; nothing was found on his person.
Large quantities of heroin/fentanyl (including black tar heroin in the freezer) and two handguns were found (under the kitchen sink); digital scales, baggies, packaging foil, and Grizzle’s ID were found in the kitchen; Hill’s driver’s license was on top of the kitchen sink.
The State relied on circumstantial evidence (Hill’s hiding, presence of scales/packaging, high street value of drugs, and Hill’s license in the kitchen) to argue constructive possession; the defense emphasized lack of proof of ownership/rental, absence of fingerprints, no surveillance, no drugs on Hill, and alternative explanations.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the State’s circumstantial evidence did not exclude every other reasonable hypothesis and was insufficient to support the convictions.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to prove constructive possession supporting trafficking/possession convictions	Circumstantial evidence (Hill hiding, his license on sink, visible scales/packaging, high value of drugs) permits an inference Hill had power and intent to control the contraband	Mere presence/proximity and license on sink do not prove power and intent; lack of ownership/rental, no fingerprints, and no drugs on person create reasonable alternative hypotheses	Reversed—circumstantial evidence was insufficient under Jackson; State failed to exclude other reasonable hypotheses of innocence
Weight of flight/hiding as evidence of intent to control contraband	Hiding after announced entry shows consciousness of guilt and intent to control drugs	Hiding alone, without stronger links to contraband, is insufficient	Hiding is probative but, here, not enough when considered with other weak links; cannot sustain conviction alone
Proper standard for reviewing constructive-possession circumstantial evidence	Prior appellate formulations (allowing conviction on slight evidence of access/control) should remain	Defendant argued that the proper standard requires exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence per Jackson/OCGA §24-14-6	Court disapproved numerous cases invoking a "slight evidence" standard and reaffirmed that Jackson/OCGA §24-14-6 governs sufficiency review for circumstantial evidence
Effect of gaps in proof (no ownership/rental proof, no fingerprints, no surveillance, weapons not registered to Hill)	State argued circumstantial indicia compensate for evidentiary gaps	Defense argued these gaps undercut any inference Hill owned/controlled contraband	Held gaps critically weakened State’s case; absence of direct links rendered alternative reasonable hypotheses viable

Key Cases Cited

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (sets constitutional standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
Lebis v. State, 302 Ga. 750 (2017) (defines constructive possession and explains proximity alone is insufficient)
O'Neil v. State, 285 Ga. 125 (2009) (circumstantial evidence must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis)
Hayes v. State, 292 Ga. 506 (2013) (standard for reviewing sufficiency and deference to jury credibility findings)
Blue v. State, 350 Ga. App. 702 (2019) (reversed trafficking conviction where links between defendant and large hidden drug quantities were insufficient)
Kier v. State, 292 Ga. App. 208 (2008) (lists circumstances from which intent to control contraband may be inferred)