*1 674 judice presented only case in the sub
decides issues Appeals (a). binding precedent. See Court Rule cited as be 18, Decided November Harvey, Hanson, Yurachek; S. S. Kim- A. Bruce Mark Jennifer appellant.
berly Cornwell, H. Christopher Attorney, Porter, M. A. Quinn, Lisa Daniel J. District Attorneys, appellee. Jones, Assistant District THE BROWN v. STATE. A15A1313. (780 Judge. Presiding Ellington, County jury guilty found a DeKalb
Richard Evan
containing methamphet-
of a mixture
over 400
(e) (3).
appeal,
amine,
On
Brown contends that the
§ 16-13-31
guilt.
specifically,
presented
his
evidence of
More
insufficient
that he
he
the State failed to
knew was
Brown
possession
weight methamphetamine.
of a
For
disagree
below,
forth
and affirm.
reasons set
we
reviewing
sufficiency of the evidence
The standard for
trier of
could have found the
is
a rational
fact
whether
guilty beyond doubt. Jackson v.
defendant
reasonable
560) (1979).
Virginia,
SCt
61 LE2d
Further, circumstantial “[t]o warrant conviction on only hypothesis guilt, proved with the facts shall not be consistent every hypothesis reasonable save but shall exclude guilt 24-14-6. of the accused.” OCGA morning viewed, that on the of June
So the evidence shows Ray co-defendant, Scheidal, travel- his Jesse were Brown and County. ing Highway in DeKalb in a on Nissan Maxima night car before. The car veered off from friend borrowed slowing highway times, down, and came rolled over several without upside driver, as the identified Scheidal to rest down. witness although police driving. later told been Brown and Scheidal refused medical treatment at scene. seeing
After witness turned around came scene, back to the car. wrecked When arrived Scheidal had already helped pull Maxima, exited the and the witness Brown out of passenger’s side of the car. After Brown and Scheidal went *2 guardrail, the witness overheard driving the car. Brown tell Scheidal Brown that Brown was back and
went to the Maxima returned with phone. police reported arrived, a cell the When the witness “acting strange,” standing by Scheidal and were Brown with one the “just wandering side of the road and the around.” second walking witness described Brown with as his head down near the “looking something ground.” Against wrecked car on the witness, advice of the Brown also re-entered the overturned and still smoking vehicle. firefighters they
After arrived the scene searched the debris ejected They field to one make sure that no had been from car. pieces could discern the car’s “direction of as travel” there were guardrail ground, pointing on the wood toward the line. Near the they line, field,” wood found a box black “in line with the and debris firefighter recognized between 75 and 100 feet from the Maxima. A “pelican” watertight box, the box as a a box that absorbs shock and department carry drugs. which the fire uses to its cardiac Attached to “doughnut magnets,” the bottom of the box were two which the firefighter type had not seen on that of box. The box contained 433 grams crystal methamphetamine. help
Police, unit, a of canine searched the Maxima but drugs drug-related paraphernalia found no or in the car or on Brown’s person. The owner of the Maxima testified that the box was not to Brown, attached her vehicle when she her and loaned car drugs belong the box did her. evidence, The State also introduced similar transaction which knowledge Following was admitted to show and intent. County 4,
Brown arrested on October 2012 in Gwinnett possession marijuana eight grams methamphetamine. and At recently arrest, time of left Scheidal’s residence driving gotten a borrowed car. told officer that he one drugs arresting residence, from Scheidal’s and he told the officer that longer just drugs; “he no uses he persons, delivers them.” pulled including 21, Brown, On October were police they away over Ford after drove Scheidal’s residence Mustang. magnets Police found black box with underneath the bumper Methamphetamine marijuana rear ofthe car. in were search, warrant, grams officers found obtaining box. After bags, digital scale marijuana, sandwich methamphetamine, residence. Scheidal’s trafficking in this case for
Brown and Scheidal were indicted (e) in of former OCGA 16-13-31 methamphetamine violation § possess “did that, they knowingly June on or about methamphetamine.” As containing or more of a mixture grams issue, required that the State was preliminary argues more. State grams knew was 28 or The methamphetamine applicable here, (e),1 provided Former OCGA 16-13-31 disagrees. § sells, delivers, brings or into person who “[a]ny ... methamphetamine more of state or has of 28 methamphetamine”2 . . commits containing mixture . any is sub methamphetamine. provision This offense of statute, stantially analogous the former cocaine held in (a) Supreme Georgia which the Court has (1), 16-13-31 of the drug of the as an element knowledge cludes 39, 40 The crime. See Scott v. the former cocaine statute nevertheless differ former statute *3 trafficking provided, part, in relevant that the former cocaine statute manufactures, delivers, sells, or person knowingly who “[a]ny that knowingly possession in grams into this state or is of 28 brings who of a of 10 or any purity percent or more of cocaine or mixture with cocaine,” in cocaine. (Emph of commits the offense of more former supplied.) (a) (1) (2012). OCGA 16-13-31 Because asis § 1 (e) (2012) provided: OCGA 16-13-31 § Any sells, delivers, (e) person brings or into this has who state or methamphetamine, amphetamine, any possession grams 28 or more of or of amphetamine, containing either or as described in mixture II, felony of of Schedule methamphetamine in violation this article commits offense and, amphetamine thereof, pun- upon shall or conviction be amphetamine, (1) quantity methamphetamine, as If of or ished follows: more, containing grams but either substance involved is 28 or less than mixture grams, person mandatory minimum of shall be sentenced to a term 200 $200,000.00; years pay (2) imprisonment If the of ten and shall fine of methamphetamine, amphetamine, containing or a mixture either substance of more, grams, person grams is or less 400 be involved 200 hut than shall mandatory years imprisonment to a minimum term of of 15 and shall sentenced $300,000.00; quantity methamphetamine, amphet- pay fine and If the of more, amine, containing grams involved or or a mixture either substance is 400 mandatory imprisonment person of 25 shall he sentenced to a minimum term of pay years and a fine of million. $1 shall 2 16-13-31, 1,2013, (e), provisions July the other Effective OCGA 16-13-31 OCGA § § 2013, 4,21. p. 222, throughout “knowingly” L. the Code section. Ga. were amended delete §§ State, 190) (2015). App. (1), v. 332 Ga. n. SE2d See Summerville (e) “knowingly,” § 16-13-31 does not contain second the State legislature maintains, intended to treat in cocaine differently trafficking methamphetamine. Rather, the State (e)requires contends, only § former that OCGA 16-13-31 a defendant need knowing possession methamphetamine. inbe argument, pointed In its the State out Scott had not then applied (b), (c), (e). However, been following to former § OCGA 16-13-31 appellate brief, Court, submission the State’s this App. 617, 619 (1)(774 SE2d (2015), State, Summerville v. 332 Ga. reasoning applies marijuana held “that the trafficking provision,” Scott the former §
and concluded that former OCGA 16-13-31 (c) required appellant knowingly possessed that the State pounds marijuana. Supreme Georgia more than ten The Court of implied has that it would reach the same conclusion. See Wilson 364) (2012) (“[W]e State, 291 Ga. believe that Appellant’s argument (c) requires proof § that OCGA 16-13-31 marijuana possessed may he rious.”). knew amount of the he be merito (c) § As former OCGA 16-13-31 andformer OCGA 16-13-31 § (e) “person knowingly... brings are same to the extent who designated into state has of” the amount of trafficking, finding contraband commits the offense of our in Sum applies (c) logically merville that Scott § former OCGA 16-13-31 (e). given Supreme extends § Nor, to former OCGA 16-13-31 analysis arguments Scott, Court’s Wilson do State’s show wrongly Accordingly, agree that Summerville was decided. we required show, Brown of the State an as element ofthe crime trafficking methamphetamine, that Brown knew that the of the contraband was at least or more.
Notwithstanding require- agree that we with Brown to as (e), disagree ments former OCGA 16-13-31 we that the guilty beyond was insufficient to establish that was a reasonable Knowledge methamphetamine. posses- doubt of any sion, fact, as be shown circumstantial evidence. App. (1) (765 Freeman v.
jury may *4 words, conduct, demeanor, motive, consider “the and all other circumstances connected the for the act which accused is prosecuted.” (Punctuation omitted.) pres- and footnote Id. Given the wreck, ence the of box the debris field of the a trier of could fact jury conclude that the box been in to or attached the Maxima. The could also conclude that Brown knew about the box and was search- ing Although it for after the accident. he had been in a involved walking serious was Brown seen around wrecked car looking something ground. for on the An that, officer also noted before acknowledged appeared detained, nervous. Brown also he was methamphetamine for of officer in his later arrest to an drugs. delivers not nevertheless does show It is a in the box. reasonable knew how much contraband was simply agreed provide possibility, contends, that he had to nosy transportation Scheidal, but “he was not so as to demand drugs did details,” the box contained but or that Brown knew that support weight However, to the contraband. know the not proved evidence, facts exclude need conviction on circumstantial only hypotheses. App. State, Ga. reasonable Jackson v. questions (1) (644 “And are of reasonableness SE2d omitted.) (Citation punctuation jury.” generally decided including light totality evidence, case, of the of the Id. In jury wreck, could conclude at the scene Brown’s behavior hypothesis that Brown did have it was a reasonable that personal knowledge And of the contents of box. because traf- over 15 times threshold amount was ficking light amount, of the transaction evidence similar drug knowledge trade, could infer which a trier of fact Brown’s beyond doubt a reasonable the evidence was sufficient establish possessed grams more of mixture Brown knew that he that containing methamphetamine. State, 332 Ga.
See Summerville App. (1) (that marijuana more found in the defendant’s car was at 620 among required twice amount constitute was than possessed more evidence sufficient show defendant trafficking amount); App. State, Robinson v. 331 Ga. than (2015) (evidence defen- sufficient show 877-878 among knowledge where, of cocaine dant’s nearly things, weighed ten times the threshold cocaine amount) precedent only); App. (physical State, Freeman v. 329 Ga. (1) (evidence support trafficking where sufficient to conviction grams, weighed submitted evidence of five cocaine 50.62 transactions). Compare App. Childs v. similar 147) (2015) (evidence insufficient to show 730-731 knowledge trafficking weight cocaine where defendant’s just and there was no evidence excess of weigh measure, or other items used to that defendant scales contraband). Accordingly, package Brown’s conviction methamphetamine must be affirmed. Judgment Dillard, J., J., McFadden, concurs concurs. affirmed. only. judgment *5 concurring Judge, judgment only. DILLARD, only judgment agree I concur I do because all that is opinion. majority majority’s opinion result, said As only presented judice decides the issues in the case sub binding precedent. Appeals (a). be cited as See Rule Court 2015.
Decided November appellant. Kleinrock, Gerard B. for Attorney, James, Jr., Cross,
Robert D. District Anna G. Leonora Attorneys, appellee. Grant, Assistant District for A15A1365. AGIC et al. v. METROPOLITAN ATLANTARAPID
TRANSIT AUTHORITY et al.
Ray, Judge. Agic parents, Agic (the Abedina and her Mehmed and Alma “plaintiffs”), complaint damages against Metropolitan filed a Rapid Authority (“MARTA”) Atlanta Transit one its bus driv- injuries Agic (“Agic”) ers, Davis, Nolan that Abedina sustained in involving Following a motor vehicle trial, collision a MARTAbus.1 jury Davis, returned a verdict in favor of MARTAand which was judgment plaintiffs appeal made the final of the trial court. The judgment, contending the verdict and that the trial court erred excluding regarding a traffic citation that been issued conjunction to Davis with the follow, accident. For the reasons that we reverse.
Although aspects certain contested, the accident were it was undisputed the accident started with a collision between a by by Katy MARTA Cole, bus driven Davis a car driven and that attempting change the collision occurred while Davis was lanes on Following North Druid collision, Hills Road. this initial Cole’s car roadway oncoming traveled across the traffic, into the lanes of where by sport-utility it was struck vehicle driven Justin Hawkins. Agic, passenger seriously injured SUV, who was a in Hawkins’ the accident. 1 Katy Cole was the driver one of other vehicles involved in the collision and was defendant, voluntarily prior
named as an additional hut she was dismissed from the action party appeal. trial. Cole is anot to this