The appellant was convicted on each of four separate indictments charging him, respectively, with possession of phencyclidine, possession of methaqualone, possession of diazepam, and possession of more than an ounce of marijuana, all in violation of the Controlled Substances Act. The drugs were seized during a single search of his mobile home and premises conducted pursuant to a search warrant. On appeal he enumerates nine alleged errors. Held:
1. The evidence was amply sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of each of the offenses charged. See generally
Crawford v. State,
2 (a). The appellant contends that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress the contraband because the state failed to prove that the warrant was executed by a judicial officer with authority to do so. However, no such issue was raised in the motion to suppress itself. In fact, the motion affirms that the warrant was “issued by Justice of the Peace Paul Peal, Jr.,” whose signature appears thereon. Thus, the state was not properly placed on notice that this issue would be raised at the hearing on the motion, and the objection must be deemed waived. See
Butler v. State,
(b). The affidavit stated that an informant had observed marijuana and methaqualone in the appellant’s trailer within the
*834
past 48 hours, and it provided adequate information to support a conclusion that the informant was reliable and credible. Thus, the appellant’s contention that probable cause did not exist for the issuance of the warrant is without merit. See
Keller v. State,
3. The appellant contends that the following charge on constructive possession was unconstitutionally burden shifting: “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I charge you that where one owns, rents from others, or is a lessee of a house or premises, a presumption exists that he is in possession of the entire premises, and all the property thereon or therein. However, this is a rebuttable presumption, and may be overcome by proof that others had access to the premises. Whether or not this presumption is overcome is a question for the jury, alone, and I further charge you in that connection that if you find that the house or premises were used by others with the defendant, such evidence would not, alone, authorize a conviction, but such a fact, if it is a fact, may and should be considered by the jury, together with all the evidence in the case, and in passing upon the guilt or innocence of the defendant.”
This language is almost identical to that approved by the Supreme Court in
Knighton v. State,
4. With regard to his conviction for possession of diazepam, the appellant contends that a charge on accident was mandated by evidence that he told police his sister “had accidentally left the bottle at my place.” The defense of accident is set forth in OCGA § 16-2-2 (Code Ann. § 26-602) as follows: “A person shall not be found guilty of any crime committed by misfortune or accident where it satisfactorily appears that there was no criminal scheme or undertaking, intention, or criminal negligence.” Although there may be evidence that the appellant’s sister accidentally left the diazepam in his possession, there is nothing to indicate that the appellant himself did anything by accident or mistake. The trial court fully and correctly charged the jury on the state’s burden of proving criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt, and a charge on accident or misfortune was not required, particularly in the absence of a request *835 for one.
5. The trial court did not err in charging the jury on the law regarding confessions, as there was evidence that appellant had admitted that the drugs which were the subject of three of the four indictments belonged to him, and he did so without citing any exculpatory or legally justifying facts which would tend to show a lack of criminal intent. See generally
Robinson v. State,
6. The evidence would not have supported a charge on the misdemeanor offense of possession of less than an ounce of marijuana, even had the appellant requested such a charge. See
Manbeck v. State,
7. The mere fact that several other GBI agents could possibly have gained access to the contraband after the agent who seized it placed it in the GBI’s evidence room in Calhoun, Georgia, does not render the chain of custody deficient. The agent responsible for the contraband testified that he saw no indication that the drugs were tampered with while stored in this location, and the appellant produced no evidence that any tampering or substitution had occurred. Mere speculation that tampering or substitution may have taken place is insufficient to require exclusion of the evidence. See
Johnson v. State,
8. The trial court properly disallowed attempts by appellant’s counsel on cross-examination to determine the possible motives of the informant for supplying the information which led to the issuance of the search warrant. These questions were not relevant to the issues being tried but sought rather to obtain information concerning the informant’s identity which the state was entitled to withhold. See
Plemons v. State,
9. The evidence authorized the trial court to conclude that the appellant’s statement to police was voluntary and not induced by hope of reward or fear of injury. See generally OCGA § 24-3-50 (Code Ann. § 38-411). A contrary conclusion was not required by evidence that the officers told the appellant that his step-father and girl friend, who were also arrested at the trailer, were going to remain under arrest pending a determination of who was in possession of the contraband. Such a statement falls into the category of a mere “truism” or “recounting of the facts,” rather than an offer of benefit or threat of injury. See
Copeland v. State,
Judgment affirmed.