Following a jury trial, Alonzo Ellison was convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. He appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and asserting error in (i) statements made by the prosecutor during closing argument and (ii) the verdict form. We hold that the evidence was sufficient and that Ellison waived the alleged errors. Accordingly, we affirm.
Construed in favor of the verdict, the evidence showed that armed with a search warrant, police began using sledge hammers to knock down the entry doors to the residence of Brandon Grantling. Before they gained entry, an officer familiar with Ellison witnessed Ellison jump out the residence’s back window and flee. A second officer also witnessed Ellison flee and took up the chase with the first officer, but they were unable to apprehend Ellison.
Once inside the residence, police discovered Grantling hiding next to his bed in his bedroom, with 32 yellow baggies of marijuana under the bed. They found additional marijuana throughout the home, including marijuana in the toilet, used marijuana cigarette butts in the living room, and seven red baggies of marijuana on the kitchen table near loose marijuana and empty baggies. Grantling confessed that he owned the marijuana in the yellow baggies, in the bathroom, and in the living room, but stated that the marijuana and the red baggies of such in the kitchen belonged to Ellison. He explained that just before police arrived, he had allowed Ellison into his residence so that Ellison
Ellison was indicted for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and tried before a jury. He chose not to testify at trial. At Ellison’s request, the court charged the jury on the lesser included offense of possession of marijuana. The jury found him “guilty of possession of marijuana and guilty of intent to distribute marijuana.” The court sentenced Ellison to ten years confinement for possessing marijuana with intent to distribute, and he moved for a new trial, which was denied. He now appeals.
1. Ellison first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, arguing that his conviction was based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of an alleged accomplice in violation of OCGA § 24-4-8. Although corroboration of the testimony by a single accomplice is necessary, that corroborating evidence itself need not be sufficient to warrant conviction, but need only tend to connect and identify defendant with the crime.
Cody v. State,
Here police witnessed that Ellison was in a residence that had marijuana in many rooms, including some in the process of being bagged in the kitchen. The marijuana in the kitchen was in red baggies as opposed to the yellow baggies found near the accomplice,
implying different ownership. Police witnessed Ellison jumping out of the residence’s back window and fleeing the scene upon their attempting to gain entry to the residence, showing Ellison’s consciousness of guilt. We find that this evidence was sufficient corroboration to authorize the jury to convict Ellison of the crime charged. See
Cody,
supra,
2. Ellison contends that the trial court erred in allowing the prosecution to comment on his silence during closing argument. However, he failed to object contemporaneously to any of the State’s closing argument and has therefore waived this enumeration of error.
Braithwaite v. State,
Moreover, the prosecutor’s comments, which noted only that no one had contradicted the testimony of the accomplice, were not an improper comment on Ellison’s silence in any case. Where the prosecutor’s comments are not directed at the defendant’s decision not to testify but are directed at defense counsel’s failure to rebut or explain the State’s evidence, the comments are permissible.
Johnson v. State,
3. Ellison argues that the trial court allowed an illegal verdict that convicted him both on the charge of possession with intent to distribute and on the lesser included charge of mere possession. This argument fails for at least two reasons.
First, the verdict found Ellison guilty only of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute; it did not find him guilty of mere possession. It read: ‘We, the jury, find the defendant guilty of possession of marijuana and guilty of intent to distribute marijuana.” Thus, the jury simply broke down the verdict into the two primary findings necessary to find Ellison guilty of the offense of possessing marijuana with intent to distribute. See
Pitts v. State,
Second, there is nothing improper with a jury finding a defendant guilty of both the charged offense and a lesser included offense. When the same conduct establishes the commission of more than one crime, a defendant may be prosecuted and found guilty of each crime but may not be sentenced for both.
Gooch v. State,
Judgment affirmed.