The defendant appeals from his conviction of conspiracy to commit violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act.
Undercover agent Hollifield approached the Electric Palacе Arcade, whereupon the defendant met him at the front door and asked him if he wanted a bag of marijuana. The agent replied in the affirmative and remained outside while the defendant re-entered the arcade. Agent Hollifield watched the defendant approach and talk with Mr. Van Pelt, who then came out of the arcаde and sold the agent a bag of marijuana.
1. The defendant first contends that the trial court erred in admitting the bag оf marijuana in evidence due to breaks in the chain of custody. The evidence shows that Agent Hollifield plaсed the substance in a white envelope with Van Pelt’s name on it. The envelope was then personally dеlivered to Director Pender, who put the substance in an evidence bag with the defendant’s and Van Pelt’s names оn it and placed it in a safe deposit vault. Agent Trawick retrieved the bag from the vault and delivered its contеnts to Mrs. Hancock, a chemist for the state crime lab. Mrs. Hancock kept the substance in her locker or her purse until the time of the trial. No party at the trial except Mrs. Hancock could positively state that the substance introduced in evidence was that which he or she had handled.
The defendant specifically indiсates four alleged errors in the chain of custody: (1) that certain persons who served as links could not at trial identify the exhibit, (2) that Mrs. Hancock took the exhibit home overnight in her purse, (3) that the white envelope mentioned earlier had
*796
only Van Pelt’s name on it, and (4) that Agent Trawick’s and Director Pender’s testimony differed as to whether thеy reviewed the evidence or a list of evidence before or after Agent Trawick removed it from the vault. The chain of custody established in this case, however, meets the tests of
White v. State,
2. The defendant’s next enumeration of error deals with the admission in evidence of statements made to Agent Hollifield by Van Pelt, an alleged co-conspirator. Code § 38-306 allows admission in evidence of the declarations of a co-conspiratоr "[a]fter the fact of conspiracy shall be proved.” The state must make a prima facie showing of a conspiracy by aliunde proof.
Wall v. State,
The existence of a conspiracy "may be established by direct рroof, or by inference, as a deduction from acts and conduct, which discloses a common design on their part to act together for the. accomplishment of the unlawful purpose. In other words, the existence of a common design or purpose between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act mаy be shown by either direct or circumstantial evidence.”
Chappell v. State,
3. The defendant claims that error was committed in the court’s failure to charge the wholе of Code Ann. § 79A-811 (j) (Ga. L. 1974, pp. 221, 243; 1975, pp. 1112, 1113), which prohibits the sale of marijuana. This was not error, however, because thе judge did charge, "Under Georgia law the sale of marijuana is a crime.” The import of that charge is obvious and does not require the reading of a technically worded statute for clarification. See
*797
Alfriend v. Fox,
*797
4. The defendant also contends that the trial court erred in its failure to charge the jury that the existence of a consрiracy must be proven before the statements and acts of a co-conspirator can be cоnsidered. However, since the defendant did not request such a charge at the trial, he waived his rights and can not now complain on appeal. "While present law exempts the defendant in a criminal case from the strict requirements imposed on litigants in civil cases to preserve an issue on the giving of or the failure to give instructions to the jury (Ga. L. 1968, pp. 1072,1078; Code Ann. § 70-207) this does not relieve him from the necessity of requesting instructions, or making timely objeсtion in the trial court on the failure to give instructions, except in those circumstances where the omission is clearly harmful and erroneous as a matter of law in that it fails to provide the jury with the proper guidelines for dеtermining guilt or innocence.”
Spear v. State,
5. The defendant’s final enumeration of error deals with the fact that the defendant’s conviction was obtained through circumstantial evidence. A conviction can be based on such evidenсe only when the proved facts "exclude every other reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused.” Code § 38-109. The defendant suggests possibilities that Mr. Van Pelt’s sale of marijuana to the agent was а total coincidence, having no connection with any acts or intentions of the defendant. However, as this court stated in
Harris v. State,
Judgment affirmed.