The defendants were indicted for the possession of marijuana. Their general demurrers to thе indictment, motions to suppress evidence and for discovery were overruled. A certifiсate of immediate review was granted.
l.In Georgia there is no statute nor any rule of practice allowing pretrial discovery and inspection of evidence, and possession of evidence, by defendant or his counsel.
Blevins v. State,
2. The defendants filed general demurrers to the indictment on several grounds. The indictment reads in part: "On the 6th day of September, 1972. . . then and there had in their possеssion marijuana, a depressant or stimulant drug.” Code Ann. § 79A-1105 provides that the state is not required in any indiсtment charging a violation of Title 79A to negative any exception, excuse, provisо, or exemption contained in Title 79A, (the exceptions, exemptions, etc., permit certain persons to lawfully have in their possession prohibited drugs and narcotics). Whether an individual has a license or is otherwise lawfully permitted to have in his possession marijuana аs enumerated in various sections of Title 79 A is a matter of defense and not an element of the offense. See
Ezzard v. State,
All other grounds of the demurrers have no merit and they were properly overruled.
3. Augusta рolice officers, during the nighttime, were conducting a surveillance of a house in that city. They had received previous information that drugs were to be brought to this dwelling. The
*382
officers stationed themselves in an unpaved lane to the rear of the house. A Pontiac automobilе drove up to the side of the house. The occupants of the car, a man and woman, walked towards the house and the male handed a small package to a femalе. They walked to the front door. There was a bright light above the door and the male person was recognized by one of the officers as defendant Rautenstrauch due to a previous arrest of this defendant by the officers for possession of marijuana. Rautenstrauch wаs then carrying the package. After they entered the house one of the police officers stationed himself next to the house, looked through the window, and overheard a conversation. He testified that he heard someone state that the package contained "good marijuana.” Shortly thereafter, two other males came and entered and told the occupants that they had seen the police officers’ car outside. The lights in the dwelling were then extinguished and all the occupants began to leave. The two who had arrived in the Pontiac came out of the house with the same package that thеy had carried in, got into their vehicle and drove off. The police officers gave pursuit and stopped the car. The occupants (the defendants) and the car, were searched. The package found in the car appeared to contain marijuana. The officers had no warrant to search the dwelling, nor warrants to arrest the defendants. The police, by stopping the defendants, effected an arrest of their persons аs there was a curtailment of their locomotion.
Davidson v. State,
Judgment affirmed.