Stаnley King appeals his conviction for possession of methamphetamine in his bodily fluid. See OCGA § 16-13-30 (a). He contends the trial court erred by allowing introduction of evidence concerning a similar transaсtion regarding a 1984 conviction for sale of methamphetamine; that the trial court erred by its charge on similar transaction; and the trial court also erred by denying his motion for a directed verdict. Held:
1. King first cоntends the trial court erred by allowing introduction of evidence concerning his 1984 convictions for sale of methamphetamine because the transactions were not so similar that proof of thе 1984 offenses proved anything about the present offense. The
*302
trial court, however, permitted the State to introduce evidence of the 1984 drug sales because the court found that “both charges invоlve the possession of methamphetamine, and the Court finds that proof of one tends to prove the other and that the evidence is offered for the purpose of showing intent, bent of mind, motive, аnd course of conduct.” On appeal, the State contends that the evidence was properly admitted to prove intent and that there is no requirement that the similar transaction and the offense being tried be identical. See
Cantrell v. State,
Consequently, proof of a distinct, independent, and separate offense is never admissible unless there is some logical connection between the separаte offense and the offense for which the accused is on trial so that proof of the separate offense establishes the offense for which the accused is on trial.
Williams v. State,
Further, the State must show facts establishing both that the acсused committed the independent offense or act and the connection or similarity between the independent offense or act and the offense now charged is sufficient so that proof оf the former tends to prove the latter.
Stephens v. State,
Considered in this light, we find that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of King’s 1984 convictions for sale of methamphetаmine and other drugs. Even though methamphetamine was involved in the crime at bar and in some of the other drug offenses, that is the end of the similarities among the offenses. The other offenses involved sales and nоt use of the drug.
We cannot agree with the trial court’s determination. The facts testified to at trial show that other than the fact that the earlier offenses to some extent involved methamphetaminеs, there are no significant similarities between these offenses. In the earlier offenses, the drugs were sold to an undercover officer. In the present case, King was charged with possession of the mеthamphetamine in his bodily fluid. Thus, he was using, not selling the drug or possessing the drug for sale. Although the prosecutor urged, and the trial court found, that the prior crime was introduced to prove “intent, bent of mind, motive and cоurse of conduct,” there is nothing about the earlier offense that proved the second.
Stephens v. State,
supra. Now on appeal the State argues that the prior offense was admissible to prove intent, but the State does not explain how the sale of drugs in 1984 proves the intent to use drugs in this offense. Moreover, while theoretically motive may always be relevant in a criminal prosecution, motive was not an issue in this case, and it would appear the motive to sell drugs might differ substantially from the motive to possess drugs in one’s bodily fluids. In the same manner neither bent of mind nor course of conduct was an issue here unless the рrosecution intended to show King’s propensity to commit drug crimes. Under our law, however, that is not a permissible basis for introducing similar transaction evidence.
Williams,
supra at 641. Although our Supreme Court held in
McCord v. State,
King’s defense was that the drug was placed in his coffee without his knowledge or permission, and thus he lacked the requisite criminal intent. We note that if it were permissible to admit the prior drug sales in the trial of this case, then any earlier drug offenses would be admissible in any drug trial. That is not yet our law.
Accordingly, it was error to admit the evidence of the prior transaction, and since it cannot be said that the error was harmless, the cоnviction must be reversed.
Robinson v. State,
2. King also alleges that the trial court’s charge to the jury on the similar transaction constituted reversible error because the charge used the term “offenses” when there was only one allegedly similar transaction and the trial court did not charge the jury properly on the purpose for which the evidence was submitted. In view of our disposition in Division 1, we address this issue because thе issue may again arise if the case is retried. We find no error in the trial court’s use of “offenses.” Although there was only one conviction, King, in fact, was convicted of more than one offense. Under the сircumstances, use of “offenses” was correct.
In regard to the legal validity of the charge given, the charge was the one King requested. Therefore, he cannot now complain that this charge was given.
Garner v. State,
3. King further contends that the trial court erred by denying his
*305
motion for a directed verdict of acquittal. A motion for a directed verdict in a criminal case should be granted only when there is no conflict in the evidence and the evidence demands a verdict of acquittal as a matter of law. OCGA § 17-9-1 (a);
Alexander v. State,
Judgment reversed.