*1 Stair, Wilde, Douglas Kent T.

Jerry Patrick, Jr., L.

76399. the Interest Judge. Chief

Birdsong, A.,A. C. age adjudicated delinquent petition al- upon leging a violation of Georgia having Controlled Substances Act in his possession marijuana], “less than an ounce his vehicle [of when the by police Appellant vehicle was searched officers.” com- plains appeal only on general grounds, finding on the that the is con- trary to the supported by law and the and not the evidence. Held: officer investigating testified he received information from a Am,

confidential informant about a Pontiac Trans with a certain plate number, license Dye’s Albany. which at stopped Tavern Two youths white and a youth got it. The black were went into the marijuana. with and returned With this informa- tion, the Dye’s officer and partner Tavern and saw this drove very up same car pull Dye’s again. Tavern The officer watched through binoculars. A got black male out and into tavern. went There testimony was no appeared anything that he him when he came got police out and car. officers could not see inside got the car. The car’s driver out looked under the hood as if something wrong. At this the officer drove up behind the Trans Am partner and he and his out of their car. They identified police occupants themselves as officers and asked the get so, Trans Am to out patted when them down. A., the backseat behind the car, driver. When the group emerged from the the officer asked who owned the car and C. A. A. he did. When the officer told C. A. A. he had drugs information about some and he wanted to car, search said, “Fine, go C. officer ahead.” The di- rectly the seat behind the driver’s two manila what tested

The officer testified never ran a license check on C. A. A. to see if he had a driver’s on license. He testified cross-examination that C. A. A. did state to him sometime the conversation that during but the officer was not sure whether C. A. A. imparted this police information before or after arrived In fact, station. not officer testified he did know who owned the car. The differently testified did not act than else, marijuana, never saw C. A. with the in the car at all. fact could indicated female, adults, the officer in fact males and A. A. was that C. know at the time

on stand that he did juvenile. to author- sufficient this circumstantial evidence

We do find possessed himself fact to find this ize a rational trier of *2 of the exclusion reasonable doubt and to marijuana Virginia, v. 443 24-4-6; Jackson hypothesis. OCGA 560). (99 2781, U. S. 307 SC 61 LE2d three a car with in the backseat of in the the There is no evidence C. knew

adults. who proven It was not being car. The car was driven another adult. car; A. A. at said the first although the officer testified his, mother’s. car was his car was also testified C. said the evidence, re- not, see the according The officer did to the black fact, he could envelopes; turn from the with two manila in no be- engage suspicious the all and C. A. A. see inside car at saw behavior, fact, suspicious In indulge havior. he did came then except that the black male went into the tavern and adult informer had suspicious only which was because the confidential Am with just told the officer he had seen a Trans one, male, in it and out and returned mari- tying C. A. A. to juana in the car under the is his seat the driver’s seat proximity and his to the seat.

Ordinarily, position the determine is best to questions of is circumstantial. guilt reasonableness when evidence of (223 State, 643); State, v. 242 v. Harris 236 Ga. SE2d Lewis 149 Ga. (254 142); State, (246 App. App. 181 SE2d Gee v. 146 Ga. 528 SE2d (236 720); State, 842); v. 142 Pless Ga. Townsend v. App. 594 SE2d State, (195 474). 127 Ga. 799 In finder of App. SE2d this case the car,” fact stated that is no in his “there doubt mother’s [C. A.] fact, impressed and that he was most with this redoubtable since legal is you posses- “a if the car or have own you supposed sion of the car the car is in your or are is you responsible know what in it. . . . is And are what [it].” This is not the law. (cert. State, (264 Farmer 152 App. v. Ga. 795 SE2d “ ‘

den.), held, cases, im we examining many after the rule “Where room, automobile, mediate and exclusive an or of locker shown, premises the is inference is authorized that the owner in property therein, such is the owner of what is contained ference has presumption. been referred to as rebuttable [Cits.]” “(a)s automobiles, apply the rule where there does the case that has not been in defendant period prior discovery vehicle time the con- ’ traband (Emphasis sup- or that others have had access it. [Cit.]” plied.)” Where as here the evidence shows other contraband, access to the C. A. A. and there is had com- plete possession any time and control of the car any contraband found it is not “a “ sound, principle dangerous abstract law” and ‘a rule for the ” Id.; Shepherd numerous owners of v. motor vehicles.’ App. Farmer just rule stated was reaf- firmed in Fears v. driving

was not nor was he even in front seat so as to exercise operation control over the the car. fact that C. A. A. point told officer at one it was his car and also told him at another point mother’s, it was his gave permission and the fact that he search the altogether prove prove do not or tend to he had com- plete control any period of the car for of time before the marijuana was found. That the marijuana was found under the loose seat where only proximity establishes presence. circumstances, These considering greater control might had, three adults have, do *3 permit any presumption that C. A. was in possession of the marijuana.

The State presumption concedes that there is no possession and control where other equal have had access the contra- band, argues but that this place contraband was located in a in the car where appellant it, could have had access it as was “under- neath the seat However, where he sitting.” was the evidence also showed the backseat certainly was loose. It cannot be as a matter of law that none the three adult in the car had equal put access it where it was and there was nothing in the evidence from which the factfinder could conclude did not have access to it as a matter of fact.

Moreover, there no evidence all as to how when this mari- juana came lodged under the back or even that the adult male whom the officer saw entering bought the marijuana there, while he was in since there is no officer saw him emerge any object hands.

Even assuming “immediate and exclusive control” of vehicle, no arises where there is evidence by Id. p. others. 796. Without presence what is left is mere or, at the scene of a crime more to the mere near hid- den law, contraband. As matter this is not enough support finding of criminal of the contraband reasonable doubt and to the hypothesis. exclusion of See Denham v. esp. See Brown v. 374-375 under cannot be sustained adjudication we find this Accordingly, Virginia, supra. Jackson v. J., Banke, Beasley, concurs J., P. concurs.

Judgment reversed. specially. concurring specially. Judge,

Beasley, car possession of the but problem here is not so much The real in- supports reasonable passenger and otherwise un- was not mere ference that for the foursome procured car instead it connected to the but had it and its contents. from to that extent controlled probative evidence that the where placed the back seat brought into the car and knew it was there. or that he otherwise sitting while was by recently the black that obtained it was feet, inference, appellant’s by right hidden guilty knowledge. The reason prove appellant’s inadmissible to in- hearsay, totally this on what the confidential evidence was based testify. related to officer. informant did not formant rely on this evidence draw would participated secreting 2”x3” inference papers by package rolling or at manila and the 6Vis” Vis” attempted to least that he knew his seat and bluff beneath permitting naive the search. exhibiting some bravado Thus, OCGA neither constructive violation of 16-13-2 § (b) (OCGA aiding abetting nor the commission the same (b) (3)) supported. 16-2-20 be could addition, fully opinion. I concur with the

With 1988.

Decided June Mary Young-Cummings, M. Revell,

Robert H. *4 CHEVROLET, 76551. DELTA INC. v. WELLS et al. Banke, Presiding Judge. Akin, appellees, Grailyn Wells Carrol each leased a Acceptance Cor-

Chevrolet Corvette from General Motors automobile (GMAC). Inc., Chevrolet, poration acted as Delta