Defendant Castleberry and a co-defendant, who is not involved in this appeal, were indicted and convicted of possession of more than one ounce of marijuana, a violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act. Defendant Castleberry was sentenced to serve a term of three years, and he appeals. Held:
1. The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence inasmuch as the information supplied to the magistrate contained information as to the reliability of the informant, described the criminal activity so as to be more than a casual rumor circulating in the underworld, and same was not stale.
See Bell v. State,
2. "To warrant a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the proved facts shall not only be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt, but shall exclude every other reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused.” Code § 38-109. In the case sub judice, the issue involved is whether the evidence was sufficient to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis save that defendant Castleberry was in possession of the marijuana in question. The state’s evidence was that the residence in which defendant Castleberry lived with the co-defendant contained drug paraphernalia, drug residue and literature regarding the indoor cultivation of marijuana. In addition, a quantity (more than an ounce) of marijuana was found in the attic, accessible through a trap door from a common area (the bathroom) of the residence. Living potted plants of marijuana were also found located some distance from the residence structure behind a garage and on the opposite side of a fence. Marijuana seeds were found in a cue (pool and billiard) carrying case located in defendant’s bedroom. Defendant admitted that this cue case was his property. Although the evidence showed that both the co-defendant and Castleberry lived on the
*770
premises, only Castleberry and his girl friend were there at the time of the search, and they were upstairs. Castleberry testified that he was living in the building on the date of the search and had lived there for a total of two months. He lived downstairs and the bathroom was upstairs. Castleberry had a key to the upstairs and was in the process of moving from the downstairs to the upstairs. He admitted that he lived in both areas of the dwelling. He also admitted that he and co-defendant were the only residents of the dwelling at the time of the search. The above evidence is distinguishable from the facts shown in the cases of
Blankenship v. State,
After a careful review of the trial transcript and record we are convinced, and we so hold, that a rational trier of fact (the jury in this case) could readily have found defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act (unlawful possession of more than one ounce of marijuana). The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for directed verdict on the ground that constructive possession was not established according to law nor in *771 determining that a substantial quantity of marijuana was seized so as to authorize defendant’s conviction of more than one ounce of a controlled substance.
*771
3. The trial court did not err in allowing the various exhibits in evidence, such as smoking devices, pipes, roach clips, which the officers testified were used for smoking marijuana, as well as other paraphernalia involved and found in the residence. Same would show a motive or bent of mind to possess and use marijuana. See
Wall v. State,
4. In a colloquy between counsel and the court with reference to a supplemental witness list mailed by the district attorney to defense counsel there was a conflict inasmuch as the district attorney stated in his place that he had mailed a supplemental list of witnesses to defense counsel who stated in his place that he did not receive any such list. However, the court then gave the defense counsel an opportunity to interview the so-called unlisted witnesses before they were allowed to testify, and defense counsel did interview these witnesses. Thereafter, no motion for mistrial or continuance was made. Hence we find no reversible error in the handling of this matter by the trial court. See
Butler v. State,
5. The chain of custody with reference to the quantity of marijuana was established with reasonable certainty, and the trial court did not err in allowing in evidence the bag of marijuana as that found in the attic. See
Patterson v. State,
Judgment affirmed.