Jones v. the State
339 Ga. App. 95
Ga. Ct. App.2016Background
- In April 2012 police, acting on a tip, surveilled a black Chrysler 300 tied by plate to Torrell Jones and monitored a recorded phone call arranging a drug sale; after the call Jones drove the car toward the meet and was stopped.
- Officers found $3,100 on Jones and a small bag of heroin concealed on passenger Nytasia Pope.
- A search of the apartment where the car had been parked recovered an 81.68‑gram bag of heroin hidden in a tea box, three digital scales, tally sheets, cutting agent and paraphernalia; a checkbook listing Jones’s name and that address was also found.
- Jones was convicted by a jury of possessing a controlled substance outside its container, trafficking in heroin (28+ grams), and possession with intent to distribute.
- On appeal Jones challenged (1) sufficiency of evidence for trafficking (constructive possession and knowledge of weight), (2) admission of the recorded phone call when the informant did not testify (hearsay/Confrontation Clause), (3) admission of officer testimony about heroin’s effects, (4) trial court’s exercise of its role as the “thirteenth juror” on a motion for new trial, and (5) denial of mistrial after alleged improper witness comment.
Issues
| Issue | Jones’ Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency — constructive possession of 81.68 g in apartment | Evidence did not show Jones had dominion/control over hidden heroin | Items in plain view (scales, tally sheets, cutting agent), large cash on Jones, Jones’s checkbook at apartment, and lack of other occupants support joint constructive possession | Affirmed — circumstantial evidence sufficient for joint/constructive possession |
| Sufficiency — knowledge of quantity (28+ g required) | No proof Jones knew the heroin exceeded statutory weight | Large quantity (81.68 g) plus distribution paraphernalia permits inference Jones knew amount | Affirmed — circumstantial evidence supports knowledge of weight |
| Admissibility of recorded phone call / Confrontation Clause | Informant’s out‑of‑court statements were hearsay and defendant’s confrontation right was violated because informant didn’t testify | Recording was admitted to provide context for Jones’s admissions; Jones’s own statements were admissions of a party opponent | Affirmed — informant’s statements were not offered for their truth and did not violate Confrontation Clause; Jones’s statements admissible as admissions |
| Admission of officer testimony re: heroin effects | Testimony irrelevant and unduly prejudicial | Testimony provides context about the drug and why distribution occurs; low relevancy threshold | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion under Rules 401/403 |
| Trial court as "thirteenth juror" on motion for new trial | Court failed to show it exercised discretion to weigh evidence and credibility | Order denying new trial shows no indication court failed to exercise discretion; presumption judge knew and applied the rule | Affirmed — no indication court omitted thirteenth‑juror review |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes rational‑juror standard for sufficiency review)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause governs testimonial out‑of‑court statements)
- Scott v. State, 295 Ga. 39 (statutory construction: prior OCGA §16‑13‑31 required knowledge of quantity)
- Prather v. State, 293 Ga. App. 312 (circumstantial‑evidence rule: must be consistent with guilt and exclude reasonable hypotheses)
- United States v. Price, 792 F.2d 994 (11th Cir.) (recorded conversations may be admitted for context, not truth, without violating Confrontation Clause)
- United States v. Tolliver, 454 F.3d 660 (7th Cir.) (non‑testifying participant’s statements admissible to make defendant’s admissions intelligible)