Murray v. the State, 335 Ga. App. 634

On May 4, 2002, Daphne Howell received an unexpected UPS package from California containing 10 packages of marijuana (~9.6 lbs); she reported it to police.
A man (using the name “Mike Fikes”) later came to Howell’s home claiming the package was misdelivered; he left a phone number. Police used that number to arrange a Home Depot meeting with an officer posing as Howell’s daughter.
At the Home Depot meeting, Timothy Murray arrived, examined a package in the officer’s trunk, used the false name “Mike Fikes,” and was arrested; he had his young daughter in the car.
Murray gave a recorded statement implicating himself in picking up the box for a person named Mike Fikes and later claimed the package was a teddy bear and money sent by a cousin; he also said police coerced a false statement about ecstasy.
Murray was convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and providing a false name; he moved for a new trial and for directed verdicts, and challenged the trial court’s failure to charge mistake of fact and entrapment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for possession with intent	State: circumstantial evidence (Murray’s conduct, false name, prior drug convictions) proves knowledge and control	Murray: no direct proof he knew contents or intended to distribute; alternative hypotheses exist	Affirmed — evidence sufficient for jury to find constructive possession and intent beyond reasonable doubt
Denial of directed verdict on possession count	State: evidence met Jackson v. Virginia standard	Murray: same insufficiency grounds; directed verdict required	Affirmed — denial proper because evidence met legal sufficiency standard
Failure to charge mistake of fact sua sponte	Murray: testimony raised an affirmative defense (he thought package was a teddy bear and cash) so court should have instructed jury	State: trial court’s instructions as a whole covered defendant’s theory; no request was made	No reversible error — entire charge fairly presented issues, so specific mistake-of-fact charge not required
Failure to charge entrapment	Murray: entitlement to entrapment charge because state conduct produced opportunity	State: police merely provided opportunity; no inducement, and Murray was predisposed	No reversible error — evidence did not demand entrapment charge; defendant did not admit commission or request charge

Green v. State, 323 Ga. App. 832 (evidence viewed in light most favorable to verdict)
Thurmond v. State, 304 Ga. App. 587 (constructive possession requires power and intent to exercise dominion)
Peppers v. State, 261 Ga. 338 (circumstantial evidence need not exclude every hypothesis except guilt)
Martin v. State, 201 Ga. App. 716 (jury decides sufficiency of circumstantial evidence unless verdict insupportable)
Vega v. State, 285 Ga. 32 (credibility and conflict resolution are jury province)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for legal sufficiency of evidence)
Yat v. State, 279 Ga. 611 (directed verdict reviewed under Jackson standard)
Price v. State, 289 Ga. 459 (trial court must charge defendant’s sole defense if supported by some evidence)
Tarvestad v. State, 261 Ga. 605 (charge need not recite affirmative defense when whole charge presents defendant’s theory)
St. Jean v. State, 255 Ga. App. 129 (entrapment ordinarily requires admission of commission before defense applies)
Campbell v. State, 281 Ga. App. 503 (entrapment elements; mere opportunity is not entrapment)