Wooten v. State
348 Ga. App. 408
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2019Background
- On May 13, 2016, Dade County officers responded to Charles Wooten’s mobile home after a 911 call; Wooten initially refused to exit and told officers he had a gun. Officers detained him after he dropped the firearm.
- In plain view on the kitchen counter officers observed rolling papers and a green leafy substance identified as marijuana; Wooten refused consent to search his home.
- A search warrant produced: methamphetamine and meth pipes in areas Wooten used (guest bathroom, living room near his recliner, a boot in his bedroom), marijuana in pill bottles (including some labeled for his ex-wife) and marijuana paraphernalia, and a torch for smoking meth.
- A stolen handgun was recovered from Wooten’s truck (owner testified the gun went missing after a 2015 house fire); the truck also contained size 9½ shoes and $17,000 cash.
- A jury convicted Wooten of possession of methamphetamine, possession of less than one ounce of marijuana, and theft by receiving stolen property; he was sentenced to ten years probation. The State nol prossed other counts. Wooten appealed, challenging sufficiency of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Wooten's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency for drug possession (methamphetamine, marijuana) | Evidence did not show actual or constructive possession; ex-wife lived there part-time and items bore her name; no exclusive access shown | Constructive possession may be inferred from access to premises, paraphernalia in plain view, pipes/torch near where Wooten sat, and items in areas he admitted using | Affirmed — jury could infer constructive possession from residence control, paraphernalia in plain view, pipes near Wooten, and other circumstantial evidence |
| Sufficiency for theft by receiving stolen property (handgun) | No argument reported in favor of State’s proof of knowledge; Wooten disputed knowledge the gun was stolen | State relied on recovery of stolen gun from Wooten’s truck as evidence of receipt/possession | Reversed — possession alone, without suspicious circumstances to show knowledge or should-have-known, is insufficient to prove theft by receiving |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 333 Ga. App. 879 (2015) (standard of appellate review of sufficiency — view evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
- Jones v. State, 339 Ga. App. 95 (2016) (constructive possession defined as power and intent to exercise dominion or control)
- Castillo v. State, 288 Ga. App. 828 (2007) (access may prove power; surrounding circumstances show intent)
- Mask v. State, 309 Ga. App. 761 (2011) (constructive possession may be proven circumstantially)
- Feliciano v. State, 302 Ga. App. 328 (2010) (proximity alone insufficient to prove possession)
- Hodges v. State, 277 Ga. App. 174 (2006) (mere presence at scene is insufficient)
- Bailey v. State, 294 Ga. App. 437 (2008) (ownership or control of premises gives rebuttable presumption of possession)
- Prather v. State, 293 Ga. App. 312 (2008) (slight evidence of access, power, and intent keeps possession question to jury)
- Taylor v. State, 267 Ga. App. 588 (2004) (credibility and conflicts are for the factfinder)
- Wells v. State, 268 Ga. App. 62 (2004) (possession of recently stolen property alone insufficient to prove knowledge it was stolen)
- Stacey v. State, 292 Ga. 838 (2013) (knowledge a firearm was stolen cannot be inferred from weak circumstances such as mere possession or finding a reported-stolen gun)