King v. State

Decision Date21 February 2014
Docket NumberNo. A13A1983.,A13A1983.
Citation325 Ga.App. 777,755 S.E.2d 22
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals
PartiesKING v. The STATE.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Teresa Lynn Smith, for Appellant.

Fredric Daniel Bright, Dist. Atty., Alison Teresa Burleson, Asst. Dist. Atty., for Appellee.

BRANCH, Judge.

Eddie James King was tried by a Morgan County jury and found guilty of one count of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute 1 and one count of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute within 1,000 feet of a public park.2 He now appeals from the denialof his motion for a new trial arguing that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. King further contends that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion to disclose the identity of a confidential informant (“CI”) used to make a drug buy at King's residence and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We find no error and affirm.

“On appeal from a criminal conviction, the defendant is no longer entitled to a presumption of innocence and we therefore construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury's guilty verdict.” (Citation omitted.) Marriott v. State, 320 Ga.App. 58, 739 S.E.2d 68 (2013). So viewed, the record shows that in approximately March 2008, the Morgan County sheriff's office received information that King was selling drugs out of his home in Madison. After learning that King was living alone, was unemployed, and was without any known means of support, agents with the sheriff's office and the Ocmulgee Drug Task Force began surveillance of King's residence, and on April 1, 2008, law enforcement sent a CI to make a controlled buy of cocaine at King's house. The person who sold the cocaine to the CI, however, was not King, but a man the CI identified only as “Black.” According to police, “Black” was later identified as King's nephew, Lamar Jonigans.

Based on information obtained during their investigation and surveillance of King's home, several law enforcement agents accompanied King's probation officer to King's house on April 10, 2008.3 When the probation and law enforcement officers arrived at King's home, King was sitting in the carport area with another male, later identified as Jonigans, and Carla White, King's then-girlfriend, was inside the house. Captain Kenny Stewart, a narcotics investigator with the sheriff's office, testified that he knew King from past narcotics investigations and that when Stewart appeared at the residence King recognized him and “became extremely nervous.” Stewart explained to King that police had received reports that King was selling drugs out of his house and asked King for permission to search the residence. King gave his consent to search and also consented to a search of his person. During the search of King's person, officers found $239 cash, in small denominations. Stewart testified, based on his training and experience in narcotics investigations, that it was typical for a person who was selling drugs to individuals to carry a large amount of cash in small bills, because such a person frequently had to “make change.”

After King consented to the search of his house, he became even more nervous. According to Stewart, King appeared dizzy, his stomach became upset, and he defecated in his pants. Additionally, when it became apparent that officers were going to search the home, King's nephew fled from the carport on foot. 4

During the search, officers found both powder and crack cocaine located inside a tin canister sitting on top of the kitchen cabinets. The powder cocaine, which weighed approximately 3.35 grams, was packaged in 16 small bags, while another bag contained 4 or 5 rocks of crack cocaine, weighing a total of 0.87 grams. Stewart stated that based on his training and experience as a narcotics investigator, the total amount of cocaine found in King's house was greater than the typical amount that would be held by an addict or regular user of the drug, as those people did not generally have the financial means to obtain that quantity of cocaine at one time. Rather, the total amount of cocaine and the way in which it was packaged indicated that the drugs belonged to a dealer—i.e., someone who was selling the drug to third parties. Stewart also explained that powder cocaine was a “unique item” in the Madison area and the only person he knew of in the area who sold cocaine in powder form was King.

Brian Moore, an officer with the Ocmulgee Drug Task Force, also participated in the search of King's residence and testified at trial. He confirmed that after King consented to the search, he appeared to be extremely nervous; Moore explained that King could not carry on a normal conversation, was stuttering, could not make eye contact, and soiled himself. Like Stewart, Moore opined that the amount of cocaine found in King's house and the way in which it was packaged indicated that the drugs were the property of a dealer who was planning to sell them to third parties.

When the cocaine was discovered, King insisted that the drugs did not belong to him but instead belonged to White. According to the investigating officers, however, White, who is approximately 5'5?, would have been unable to access the drugs easily, as they were located on top of cabinets ending approximately seven to seven-and-one-half feet above the floor. Conversely, King, who is approximately 6'2? tall, could have reached the drugs by stretching and extending his arms. Moreover, Stewart and King's probation officer were both familiar with White, and both men knew White to be a “hard core” drug addict, but did not know her as someone who sold drugs. Nevertheless, officers arrested both King and White and charged each of them with possession with intent to distribute.

White testified at King's trial and admitted that she was a drug addict who was attempting to overcome her addiction 5 and that her drug of choice was powder cocaine. According to White, she met King when she began buying drugs from him in 2001, and she soon began a sexual relationship with him. She stated that she had received cocaine from King on a number of occasions; sometimes she purchased the drugs from King and other times he gave her the drugs. White had also seen King sell cocaine to other people on numerous occasions. With respect to the incident in question, White confirmed that at the time, King was the only person living in his house. She explained that prior to April 10, 2008, she had been living in Monroe, “away from” King, for approximately three weeks, in an attempt to become drug-free. On April 9, however, King sent his niece to pick up White in Monroe and bring her back to Madison; King told White that he “had something for [her],” and she knew that the “something” referred to cocaine. She spent the night with King, who provided her with two or three small bags of cocaine. The next morning, before police arrived, she also purchased a small quantity of cocaine from King. That same morning, White saw King make two separate sales of crack cocaine to an unidentified man.

White further testified that because of her serious cocaine addiction, King generally hid his supply of cocaine from her and would never trust her with large quantities of the drug. Rather, when King gave her cocaine, he always had it on his person. White also stated that although she had a small amount of cash with her on the morning of April 10, she was at the time unemployed and without the financial resources to obtain the amount of cocaine found in King's house.

The State also introduced similar transaction evidence showing that in December 2002 law enforcement began an investigation into reports that King was selling powder cocaine out of his house.6 After performing two controlled buys of small quantities of cocaine from King, officers obtained a search warrant for King's residence. When they executed that warrant, the police found five small, individually wrapped bags of powder cocaine. King was subsequently charged with possession with intent to distribute, and he pled guilty to that charge in April 2003. Additionally, the State introduced evidence showing that following his arrest on the charges at issue, King offered to identify for police his supplier, who he claimed was known as “Red.” He had law enforcement officers drive him to Athens, where he pointed out a tire and rim shop and stated that he purchased his cocaine from Red at that location.

At his trial on the current charges, King testified in his own defense and acknowledged that he owned the house where the drugs were found and that he was the only person who had a key to the residence. He nevertheless denied ownership of the drugs or knowledge that they were in his house. King also testified that White was living with him in his house in April 2008, and that she was using drugs at the time.7 According to King, he had never sold cocaine to White, although he had purchased the drug from other people and given it to White. Additionally, King claimed that the money police found in his pocket came from a construction job he was working. He could not explain why his probation officer testified that King was unemployed, as the probation officer had visited King at the job site. King explained his conversations with police where he identified his supplier as “Red,” by saying they were “payback.” Specifically, King stated that he felt like police had “played with” him by claiming the drugs in question belonged to King, and King therefore “felt like [he would] return the favor” and “play with” the officers by taking them “on a wild goose chase.”

Following his conviction, King filed a motion for a new trial. The trial court denied that motion and King now appeals from that order.

1. King asserts that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions because the State failed to prove that he possessed the drugs found in his kitchen.8 With respect to this claim of error,

the relevant question is whether, after...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Prophitt v. State, A15A2400.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 16 Marzo 2016
    ...contradicted, to support each fact necessary to make out the State's case, the jury's verdict will be upheld.King v. State, 325 Ga.App. 777, 781(1), 755 S.E.2d 22 (2014) (citation and punctuation omitted). See also Dorsey v. State, 279 Ga. 534, 542(3), 615 S.E.2d 512 (2005) ("[t]he standard......
  • Reynolds v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 13 Noviembre 2015
    ...contradicted, to support each fact necessary to make out the State's case, the jury's verdict will be upheld.King v. State, 325 Ga.App. 777, 781(1), 755 S.E.2d 22 (2014) (citation and punctuation omitted). See also Dorsey v. State, 279 Ga. 534, 542(3), 615 S.E.2d 512 (2005) ("[t]he standard......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT