Palencia-Barron v. State, 318 Ga. App. 301

Palencia-Barron appeals his Trafficking in methamphetamine conviction.
Evidence showed two cups with methamphetamine in a truck where Palencia-Barron was a passenger.
A confidential informant arranged the buy; a white Dodge truck matched the description.
The driver testified Palencia-Barron knew of the delivery and displayed a drug bag to an unknown person.
The truck contained methamphetamine weighing 335.71 grams with a strong odor; driver pled guilty prior to trial.
The defense argued lack of credible proof and mere presence as a passenger; the court denied a directed verdict and admitted evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for possession	Palencia-Barron asserts no possession evidence.	Palencia-Barron claims insufficient corroboration.	Evidence supported possession beyond a reasonable doubt.
Admissibility of out-of-court statements via interpreter	Interpreted statements were unreliable and improperly admitted.	Language-conduit rule permits translator statements if no inaccuracy or motive.	Waiver occurred, but language-conduit rule applied; statements treated as driver’s statements.
Witness basis of knowledge for driver’s statements	Driver’s knowledge should be challenged; basis not proven.	Driver testified from personal knowledge about Palencia-Barron’s involvement.	Driver’s personal knowledge established; proper foundation shown.
Sua sponte jury instruction on presumptions of possession	Passenger presumption should apply to contraband in vehicle.	No presumption for passenger; instruction unwarranted.	No passenger possession presumption; instruction not required.

Green v. State, 298 Ga. App. 17 (Ga. App. 2009) (prior inconsistent statement admissibility and corroboration)
Jarrett v. State, 299 Ga. App. 525 (Ga. App. 2009) (accomplice testimony and corroboration requirements)
Dunn v. State, 277 Ga. App. 209 (Ga. App. 2006) (preservation and evidentiary rule on punctuation/footnotes)