McNeal v. State
326 Ga. App. 429
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Traffic stop of a rented Ford F-150 on I-75 after officer observed lane crossings; driver Stevie McNeal and passenger Lamont Walters were the only occupants.
- Officer smelled strong marijuana odor, saw marijuana residue on the front floorboard, observed nervous behavior, bloodshot/glassy eyes, and trembling.
- Officer discovered two stacked $100 bills in passenger’s wallet, a large dark plastic bag under two jackets on the rear seat containing multiple one-gallon and sandwich bags of marijuana (total ~9.75 lbs), and a tan leather bag on the rear floorboard holding a one-kilogram brick of cocaine.
- McNeal attempted to flee during arrest; both men were handcuffed. Walters later asked if claiming the drugs would free McNeal.
- McNeal and Walters were charged with trafficking in cocaine and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute; both were convicted at jury trial. McNeal moved for new trial arguing insufficiency of evidence, jury-instruction errors (permissive presumption and equal access), an improper judicial comment, and ineffective assistance of counsel; the trial court denied relief and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (McNeal) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for joint constructive possession of cocaine and marijuana | Evidence did not exclude reasonable hypothesis that passenger Walters alone possessed the drugs | Circumstantial facts (odor, residue, large quantities, cash, placement of cocaine bag behind driver, flight, misidentification of passenger) support inference of joint constructive possession | Conviction affirmed; evidence legally sufficient under Jackson standard |
| Permissive presumption that driver possesses vehicle contents; need for equal-access instruction | Presumption improper because Walters had equal access, so jury should not be instructed or should receive equal-access charge | Driver status gives rebuttable presumption; equal-access rule does not apply when co-defendants are alleged joint constructive possessors | No plain error: presumption instruction proper; equal-access instruction not required where joint possession alleged |
| Trial court’s in-court remark during evidentiary colloquy (implying no evidence linking contraband) violated OCGA § 17-8-57 | Judge’s remark expressed opinion on evidence/guilt, warranting reversal | Remark made during ruling on admissibility and did not express opinion on guilt; court later instructed jury that judge gave no indication of which side should prevail | No violation found; remark was a ruling colloquy and curative jury instruction sufficed |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (various alleged omissions) | Counsel failed to object to alleged errors, did not investigate physical evidence (key chain), and missed opportunities to exploit exculpatory facts | Many points were meritless or speculative; missing evidence (key chain) not produced at motion hearing; no reasonable probability of a different outcome | Strickland/Harrington standard not met; performance not shown deficient nor prejudicial; claim denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes sufficiency review standard requiring that a rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt)
- Holiman v. State, 313 Ga. App. 76 (defines actual and constructive possession; joint and sole possession concepts)
- Ramirez v. State, 290 Ga. App. 3 (driver-of-vehicle permissive presumption of possession and limits of equal-access rule)
- Kelly v. State, 290 Ga. 29 (plain-error framework for unobjected-to jury-charge errors)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (articulates standard for ineffective-assistance prejudice under Strickland)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-pronged ineffective assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Butler v. State, 290 Ga. 412 (judicial remarks during evidentiary rulings are not ordinarily impermissible comments on evidence)
- Jones v. State, 292 Ga. 593 (defendant alleging failure to present evidence or witnesses must produce that evidence at motion for new trial)