Collins v. State

• Decision Date: 08 September 1992
• Docket Number: No. A92A0863,A92A0863
• Citation: Collins v. State, 422 S.E.2d 56, 205 Ga.App. 341 (Ga. App. 1992)
• Parties: COLLINS v. The STATE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 56

422 S.E.2d 56

205 Ga.App. 341

COLLINS v.The STATE.

No. A92A0863.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Sept. 8, 1992.

Michael M. White, Lawrenceville, for appellant.

Thomas C. Lawler III, Dist. Atty., Debra K. Turner, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.

POPE, Judge.

The defendant, Zachary S. Collins, was tried by a jury and convicted of unlawful distribution of cocaine.On appeal he asserts the trial court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict and that evidence of a similar transaction was improperly admitted.

The State presented evidence showing that J.L. Stevens, an undercover narcotics investigator for the Duluth Police Department, was driving in the vicinity of the Mount Carmel Baptist Church when defendant's brother, Danny Collins, walked in front of his pick-up truck and asked Stevens "what he wanted and how much."Stevens told him he wanted "two rocks," and Collins went into an adjacent yard where some other men were standing.After speaking to them he came back and told Stevens they did not have any rocks but to drive around the block and go to the church.Stevens circled the area a couple of times.The first time he passed the church defendant yelled at him, but he went by.When he came back defendant tried to flag him down.Stevens sped up because he knew the defendant from previous encounters and did not want to be recognized.He then parked in the church parking lot just barely off the street and began watching Danny Collins through his binoculars as he talked to a group of people in another yard.

When Stevens saw Collins walking toward him, he started to leave the parking lot but Collins motioned to him to stay where he was.Collins walked past Stevens and began talking with defendant in a well-lit spot under a street lamp approximately 25 yards away.Watching through the binoculars Stevens saw the defendant pull what appeared to be plastic bags out of one of his pockets and hand one to Collins, who then turned and walked straight over to Stevens while defendant stood and watched.Collins handed Stevens a plastic bag which contained what was later analyzed to be one rock of crack cocaine in exchange for $20.Stevens got out of the truck and told Collins he was under arrest.Collins ran to where defendant was standing and they both ran off between some buildings.Stevens saw defendant driving his car in the same neighborhood the next day and arrested him.Evidence that defendant had pled guilty to possession of cocaine in 1990 was allowed.

1." ' "The denial of a motion for directed verdict of acquittal (where, as here, the motion is grounded on insufficiency of the evidence) should be affirmed if any rational trier of fact could have found the 'essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.' " '[Cits.] When this appellate standard is found to exist, we are per force finding that the evidence does not demand an acquittal as a matter of law.[Cit.]'Since the evidence was sufficient under the test provided under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (99 SC [S.Ct.] 2781, 61 LE2d[L.Ed.2d] 560 [ (1979) ] ... appellant's motion for directed verdict was properly denied.'[Cits.] On appeal the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to support the verdict, and appellant no longer enjoys a presumption of innocence; moreover, an appellate court determines evidence sufficiency and does not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility.[Cit.] Review of the transcript reveals ample evidence from which any rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was guilty of the offense of which convicted.Jackson v. Virginia, supra.The trial court did not err in denying [either] the motion for directed verdict[or for new trial]."Wright v. State, 199 Ga.App. 718, 719(1), 405 S.E.2d 757(1991).AccordHall v. State, 200 Ga.App. 244, 407 S.E.2d 470(1991);Davis v. State, 200 Ga.App. 44, 46(3), 406 S.E.2d 555(1991).

2.Defendant contends the trial court committed reversible error in allowing the State to introduce the similar transaction evidence because it involved a plea of guilty to possession of cocaine rather than unlawful distribution.He grounds his position on the dissent in Faison v. State, 199 Ga.App. 447, 450, 405 S.E.2d 277(1991), wherein it was stated: "While the act of selling a drug...