Sams v. StateSams v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Deen
Melvin Sams was convicted of two counts of violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act (possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and possession of cocaine), and possession of drug-related objects. The two drug counts were merged by the trial court at sentencing. On appeal Sams assеrts seven enumerations of error.
1. Appellant first asserts the general grounds as to the count alleging possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.
The evidеnce showed that officers of the Rome-Floyd Metro Task Force executed a search warrant at appellant’s residence. Two women and appellant were present when the warrant was executed. When the officers entered the house, appellant ran from the living room to a bеdroom and was apprehended when he walked out of a utility room which was connected with the bedroom. Suspected cocaine was found stuffed down a drainpipe in the utility room, and fresh blood was found on the rim of the drainpipe. The arresting officer inspected appellant’s hand and found a bleeding cut on his right index finger.
To support a conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, the State is required to prove more than mere possession. Wright v. State, 154 Ga. App. 400, 401 (268 SE2d 378) (1980), cert. denied 449 U. S. 900 (1980). In the instant case, the testimony of a woman, who was present in the house at the time the search wаrrant was executed, that she had made cocaine purchases from appellant earlier in the day and was present to make a third buy, when combined with other evidence (scales for weighing cocaine, drug paraphernalia, baking soda for cutting it, and a large amount of cash which consisted lаrgely of $20 bills), authorized the jury to find the defendant guilty of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute despite the fact that the total amount of cocaine found on the premises totaled only two grams. Doe v. State, 189 Ga. App. 793, 795 (377 SE2d 546) (1989); Houston v. State, 180 Ga. App. 267, 268 (349 SE2d 228) (1986). On appeal, the evidence is construed to uphold the jury verdict, because the jury alone determines the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to the testimony and other evidence. Doe v. State, supra; Thomas v. State, 175 Ga. App. 873, 874 (334 SE2d 903) (1985). A review of the evidence reveals that it was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979); King v. State, 178 Ga. App. 343, 344 (343 SE2d 401) (1986).
2. Appellant also contends that under the rule set forth in
Ridgeway v. State,
187 Ga. App. 381, 382 (370 SE2d 216) (1988), the trial court erred in failing to give his charge that mere presence in the vicinity of cоntraband does not establish possession. An examination of the jury charge shows that the jury was charged the law as to permissible inferences it could make аs to the ownership of the premises, possession and equal access, and the pertinent law on possession of contraband. These charges were taken directly from the Council of
3. Appellant’s contention that the trial court erred in not granting his mоtion requesting the criminal histories and statements of all the witnesses, and in denying his motion to reveal the deal, is without merit.
As to the latter motion, the Assistant District Attorney who triеd the cases stated that prior to trial she had informed defense counsel that no deals had been made between the State and any witness. No evidenсe was presented to the contrary. In fact, when a co-indictee was questioned as to any deals made with the prosecution for her testimony, she replied that none had been made.
Appellant relies upon Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (83 SC 1194, 10 LE2d 215) (1963), to support his position that the State should have been required to produce the criminal histories and statements оf the State’s witnesses. Brady does not place such an extensive burden upon the prosecution; it only requires the State to produce evidence favorable to the defendant. Hicks v. State, 232 Ga. 393, 394 (207 SE2d 30) (1974); Callahan v. State, 179 Ga. App. 556, 566 (347 SE2d 269) (1986).
4. Appellant further asserts as error the introduction into evidence of testimony that 19 grams of a white powdery substance were seized at his home, while only 2 grams were proved to be cocaine. He claims that he was prejudiced by the introduction of this evidence because thе jury based its verdict on the possession with intent to distribute count on this testimony. We must disagree that this testimony was the basis for the jury verdict because there was testimony as tо sales that appellant had made to one of the witnesses. Moreover, the expert witness from the State Crime Laboratory testified that he did not anаlyze all the material that was sent to him, but could testify only that four of the State’s exhibits tested positive for cocaine. We find no error in admitting testimony that 19 grams of a white powdery substance were recovered from appellant’s home.
5. It was not error for the lower court to deny appellant’s motion for а mistrial based on the State’s request for an attachment for a non-appearing witness. The State made a showing of its attempt to secure the witness’ attеndance in order to have the trial judge sign an attachment so that the absent witness could later be found to be in contempt of court for failure to resрond to the State’s subpoena.
6. As appellant opened the door for the admission of testimony about surveillance of his residence, we find no merit in his sevеnth enumeration. He testified that the Task Force had used one of the witnesses arrested in his home to “set me up.” On cross-examination he testified that the Task Fоrce had constantly been riding up and down the street in front of his house. To rebut appellant’s claim of being set up, the State called a Task Force investigator as a rebuttal witness. He testified that the Task Force did not have concentrated surveillance on the accused’s home prior to Septеmber 1, 1989, but during the week before his arrest it had spent one day watching Sams’ home. On cross-examination, the officer was asked about other arrests in the areа prior to September 1, 1989, and where they occurred. The investigator then testified as to the arrest of four persons who had left appellant’s residence, where a transaction had been observed. The investigator was asked to describe the pre-September 1 surveillance in detail on redirect. The motion for a mistrial was then made by defense counsel. The door was clearly opened to this testimony and the trial court properly denied the objection.
Judgment affirmed.
Pope and Beasley, JJ., concur.