LEE v. the STATE.
347 Ga. App. 508
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Police went to Lee’s home to serve an arrest warrant; found his truck in the driveway and, after obtaining entry, discovered Lee hiding in the master bedroom.
- Officers observed in plain view drug paraphernalia, a bullet, and suspected methamphetamine; they obtained a second warrant to search the residence and curtilage.
- Searches yielded a black bag and other items testing positive for methamphetamine, a locked safe opened with a key from Lee’s ring (containing scales, spoons, and pipes), bleach-soaked items in a bathroom trash can, and a handgun in a backpack Lee admitted was his.
- Lee’s girlfriend testified she planted the drugs; the jury disbelieved her and convicted Lee of possession of methamphetamine, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, tampering with evidence, obstruction of an officer, and possession of drug-related objects.
- Post-conviction, Lee challenged sufficiency of evidence for tampering and obstruction, multiple jury instructions, merger of drug-related-objects conviction with drug possession, and asserted ineffective assistance of counsel for not seeking suppression of evidence seized under the warrants.
Issues
| Issue | Lee's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for tampering with evidence | Evidence did not show Lee altered methamphetamine as alleged | Bleach-soaked contraband, officer testimony that bleach destroys tests, and Lee alone in house supported knowing alteration to obstruct prosecution | Affirmed: sufficient evidence to convict for tampering |
| Sufficiency of evidence for misdemeanor obstruction (failure to answer door) | Officers never identified themselves; no proof Lee knew they were police, so no knowing obstruction | Totality of circumstances (video exterior, Lee hiding under bed, tampering immediately before arrest) supported jury finding Lee knew intruders were officers | Affirmed: jury could find Lee knew they were police and thus knowingly obstructed |
| Alleged jury-charge errors (overbroad drug-related-objects definition; chain-of-custody stipulation; failure to charge circumstantial-evidence statute) | Instructions expanded indictment, improperly told jury chain-of-custody was OK, and omitted OCGA § 24-14-6 instruction | Instructions read as whole limited jurors to indictment; Lee waived any chain-of-custody objection; circumstantial-evidence charge not required because State’s case included direct evidence and Lee did not submit written request | No plain error: instructions proper or waived; no §24-14-6 charge required |
| Merger and ineffective-assistance claims re: suppression of evidence seized under warrants | Drug-related-objects conviction should merge into possession of methamphetamine; counsel ineffective for not moving to suppress evidence from searches (first warrant invalid; second lacked probable cause and misnamed Lee) | Drug possession and possession of drug-related objects require different elements; arrest-warrant entry and plain-view observations justified first entry; affidavit and magistrate support probable cause for second warrant and name error was scrivener’s error; counsel not ineffective | Affirmed: convictions do not merge; counsel not ineffective—suppression motion would likely fail given arrest‑warrant entry, plain view, probable cause, and harmless name error |
Key Cases Cited
- Reddick v. State, 298 Ga. App. 155 (court reviews evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict)
- Kirchner v. State, 322 Ga. App. 275 (tampering conviction supported where defendant attempted to wash or alter suspected contraband)
- King v. State, 317 Ga. App. 834 (tampering insufficient where police did not observe act of alteration or recover contraband)
- Lauderback v. State, 320 Ga. App. 649 (plain-error standard for unpreserved jury-charge objections)
- Simpson v. State, 302 Ga. 875 (jury instructions read as a whole can cure overbreadth)
- Walker v. State, 295 Ga. 688 (court need only charge OCGA § 24-14-6 when the State’s case is wholly circumstantial)
- Grissom v. State, 296 Ga. 406 (required-evidence test for merger of convictions)
- Prince v. State, 295 Ga. 788 (two-part ineffective-assistance standard and suppression-motio n analysis)
- Francis v. State, 345 Ga. App. 586 (arrest warrant founded on probable cause authorizes limited entry into dwelling where suspect may be found)
- Wall v. State, 291 Ga. App. 278 (plain-view seizure valid when officer is lawfully situated)
- Fuller v. State, 295 Ga. App. 439 (scrivener’s errors in affidavits do not necessarily invalidate warrants where remaining content supports probable cause)