A jury found Orasama Andrews guilty of possession of cocaine. He appeals following his conviction and the denial of his motion for new trial.
1. Andrews contends that the evidence was insufficient to authorize his conviction because other people had access to the house and *809 bedroom in which the cocaine was found. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence shows that Andrews lived in his mother’s house at 216 Cindy Street with his mother, Janet White and Marcus Smith. The testimony conflicts as to whether Andrews’ girl friend, Holly Bell, actually lived in the house with him or just spent the night there occasionally. After receiving a complaint that drugs were being sold out of the residence by Andrews, Bell, Smith and White, police conducted an undercover buy in which Smith sold an informant cocaine in the house. Police then obtained a warrant to search the residence. When they entered the house unannounced, they found Andrews leaving a bathroom, White in the southwest bedroom, and Bell and a juvenile in the living room. Officers found three rocks of crack cocaine under the bed in the northwest bedroom. They also found in the same bedroom a checkbook from a joint account bearing Andrews’ and Bell’s names, men’s and women’s clothing and a cellular phone service application completed in Bell’s name.
“The equal access defense is based on the rule that merely finding contraband on premises occupied by a defendant is not sufficient to support a conviction if it affirmatively appears from the evidence that persons other than the defendant had equal opportunity to commit the crime. For the equal access rule to rebut the inference of defendant’s possession of contraband, affirmative evidence must be presented that a person other than the defendant had equal access to the premises where the contraband was found.” (Citations, punctuation and emphasis omitted.)
Nelson v. State,
2. Andrews claims that evidence seized from the residence should have been suppressed because the warrant authorized the search of Smith’s residence, yet the police conducted a search of the entire resi *810 dence. This argument is without merit. That the search warrant specifically shows 216 Cindy Street as the premises to be searched is sufficient.
“The failure to name a person in the search warrant is not fatal. Search warrants are not directed at persons; they authorize the search of ‘places’ and the seizure of ‘things,’ and as a constitutional matter they need not even name the person from whom the things will be seized.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.)
Bing v. State,
Judgment affirmed.