Johnson v. State
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | Bernes |
| Citation | Johnson v. State, 656 S.E.2d 861, 289 Ga. App. 206 (Ga. App. 2008) |
| Decision Date | 16 January 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. A07A2313.,A07A2313. |
| Parties | JOHNSON v. The STATE. |
Diane M. McLeod, Savannah, for appellant.
Spencer Lawton Jr., District Attorney, Isabel M. Pauley, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
A Chatham County jury convicted Edward Devoun Johnson of sale of cocaine and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. On appeal, Johnson challenges the sufficiency of the evidence.1 For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.
On appeal from a criminal conviction, this court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, and the defendant no longer enjoys a presumption of innocence. This court neither weighs the evidence nor judges the credibility of witnesses, but only determines whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find the defendant guilty of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
(Citation omitted.) Riggins v. State, 281 Ga. App. 266, 268, 635 S.E.2d 867 (2006).
So viewed, the evidence adduced at trial shows that in the summer of 2004, an agent with the Chatham-Savannah Counter Narcotics Team ("CNT") was contacted by a confidential informant whom the agent had known for many years. The informant, an admitted drug addict, advised the agent that an individual named Edward Johnson was selling cocaine at 243 Ferrell Street in Chatham County. According to the informant, she had purchased cocaine from Johnson over 150 times during a 13-year period. The informant noted that in these prior buys, Johnson sometimes stored his cocaine in small prescription or medicine bottles, which he would flush down the toilet if approached by the police. Based on this information, the agent commenced an investigation and obtained a photograph of the defendant, which the agent showed to the informant. The informant identified the person in the photograph as Edward Johnson and confirmed that he was the individual who sold cocaine.
The agent subsequently set up a "controlled buy." On July 21, 2004, the agent took the informant to a designated location near the Ferrell Street premises. The agent searched the informant, confirmed that she had no items on her person, and gave her $40 to purchase cocaine. The agent and several other CNT agents then positioned themselves in the area so that constant visual contact could be maintained with the informant as she entered and exited the premises.
The informant proceeded directly to the premises without interference. Upon entering the premises, the informant located Johnson and asked to purchase cocaine. In return for the $40 she handed to him, Johnson retrieved two white-colored rocks from "a medicine bottle, like an aspirin, vitamin bottle type thing" and gave them to her. The entire transaction lasted approximately five minutes.
After the informant exited the premises, she proceeded directly to the pick up point and handed the agent the two rocks. The agent again searched the informant to ensure that she had no money or additional drugs on her person. The agent also performed a field test on the two rocks, which yielded a positive result for cocaine. Forensic testing at the state crime lab later confirmed that the substance was cocaine.
Thereafter, the agent sought and obtained a search warrant for the Ferrell Street premises. On July 22, 2004, eight agents with the CNT squad executed the warrant. During the search, four individuals, not including Johnson, were found on the premises and detained without incident.
As the search unfolded, two agents spotted Johnson and both yelled, "Police!" One of the two agents also yelled, In response, Johnson fled into a doorway and toward a bathroom. One of the agents pursued Johnson and tackled him, causing Johnson to fall into the bathtub as he appeared to be trying to dispose of something. When tackled, Johnson dropped an aspirin bottle out of his right hand, and it fell beside the toilet. After the agent secured Johnson and picked him up out of the bathtub, the agent noticed a prescription bottle inside the bathtub directly underneath where Johnson had fallen, near the drain. Although the prescription bottle bore the name "Thomas Jones," no one else was in the bathroom at the time of the incident other than the agent and Johnson.
Both bottles retrieved from the bathroom contained white-colored rocks. The rocks were field tested for the presence of cocaine, with positive results. The state crime lab later tested the rocks contained in the prescription bottle, which were of a larger quantity than those found in the aspirin bottle, and confirmed that the substance was cocaine.
Johnson was arrested and indicted for sale of cocaine and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. Johnson was accused of committing the offense of sale of cocaine based on the July 21, 2004 controlled buy. He was accused of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute based on the cocaine seized in the bathroom during the July 22, 2004 search. Following a jury trial, Johnson was convicted of the two offenses.
Johnson contends that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of sale of cocaine. We disagree. The agent with the CNT squad and informant testified at trial about the July 21, 2004 drug sale transaction as described above. Furthermore, the agent from the CNT squad testified that the substance bought from Johnson field tested positive for cocaine, and the state's forensic expert testified that testing at the state crime lab confirmed the same. This evidence was sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find Johnson guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the charged offense. Jackson, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, ...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Martinez v. The State
...defendant is no longer presumed innocent, and we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. See Johnson v. State, 289 Ga.App. 206, 656 S.E.2d 861 (2008). So viewed, the evidence showed that on May 19, 2003, a narcotics investigator met with a confidential informant and di......
-
Towry v. The State
...the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict, and the defendant is no longer presumed innocent. Johnson v. State, 289 Ga.App. 206, 656 S.E.2d 861 (2008). So viewed, the evidence showed that Towry and his wife are the parents of two adult daughters, Jennifer and Sonja. Acco......
-
Hickson v. the State.
...“Questions concerning the weight of the evidence and credibility of the witnesses were for the jury to decide.” Johnson v. State, 289 Ga.App. 206, 208, 656 S.E.2d 861 (2008). 2. Hickson complains that the trial court erred in admitting similar transaction evidence. Before the State can intr......
-
Jones v. State
...“[q]uestions concerning the weight of the evidence and credibility of the witnesses were for the jury to decide.” Johnson v. State, 289 Ga.App. 206, 208, 656 S.E.2d 861 (2008). In any event, the testimony of the victim was sufficient to sustain Jones' conviction for aggravated battery—famil......