Maddox v. State
322 Ga. App. 811
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Maddox, a front passenger in a car stopped at midnight, was arrested after officers smelled marijuana and found suspected cocaine and marijuana in the center console between driver and front passenger seats.
- Maddox exited the car abruptly when the officer approached, provided false identification, carried two bundles of cash and two cell phones; a rear passenger had a loaded handgun.
- Drugs tested positive for cocaine and marijuana; an electronic scale was found in the console. Maddox had prior drug possession convictions.
- The State charged Maddox with possession of cocaine and marijuana (constructive possession) and giving false information; no charges were brought against the driver, owner, or other passengers.
- The trial court instructed the jury on constructive possession and, at Maddox’s request, on a rebuttable presumption of owner control and the equal-access rule; the court refused Maddox’s requested instruction that the State must prove sole constructive possession when another occupant had equal access but was not charged.
- The jury convicted; Maddox appealed arguing insufficient evidence of his constructive possession and that the court erred by refusing the sole-possession instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for constructive possession of drugs | Maddox: circumstantial evidence did not exclude reasonable hypothesis that driver/owner solely possessed drugs | State: evidence (proximity, access, cash/phones, scale, odor, flight/false ID, priors) supports intent and power to control => constructive possession | Affirmed — circumstantial evidence sufficient to prove Maddox had constructive possession beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Burden to prove sole constructive possession when another occupant had equal access but was uncharged | Maddox: where evidence shows equal access by another uncharged occupant, State must prove he had sole constructive possession | State: need only prove defendant had either sole or joint constructive possession or was guilty as a party; no requirement to prove exclusivity | Affirmed — trial court properly refused instruction; State not required to prove sole possession |
Key Cases Cited
- Holiman v. State, 313 Ga. App. 76 (2011) (defines constructive possession and discussed equal-access instruction)
- Johnson v. State, 280 Ga. 511 (2006) (describes rebuttable presumption that owner/driver has exclusive possession and equal-access counterinstruction)
- Allen v. State, 191 Ga. App. 623 (1989) (constructive possession requires power and intent to control)
- Mitchell v. State, 268 Ga. 592 (1997) (proximity alone insufficient to prove constructive possession of hidden contraband)
- Whipple v. State, 207 Ga. App. 131 (1993) (mere presence at scene insufficient without other incriminating evidence)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- Reid v. State, 212 Ga. App. 787 (1994) (held State must prove sole constructive possession when another occupant had equal access — partially overruled here)
- Castillo v. State, 166 Ga. App. 817 (1983) (circumstantial evidence of equal access can support joint constructive possession)
- Kennemore v. State, 222 Ga. 252 (1966) (State may elect to prosecute jointly or separately)
- Trumpler v. State, 261 Ga. App. 499 (2003) (State may prove prosecuted occupant guilty as a party even if principal not charged)