Laws v. State

• Decision Date: 24 January 1980
• Docket Number: No. 58987,58987
• Citation: 153 Ga.App. 166,264 S.E.2d 700
• Parties: LAWS v. The STATE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 700

264 S.E.2d 700

153 Ga.App. 166

LAWS v. The STATE.

No. 58987.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Submitted Nov. 20, 1979.

Decided Jan. 24, 1980.

Vernon S. Pitts, Jr., Michael E. Hancock, Atlanta, for appellant.

Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Joseph J. Drolet, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.

BIRDSONG, Judge.

David Franklin Laws was convicted of a violation of the Controlled Substances Act by selling marijuana to an undercover police officer. He was sentenced to three years probation provided he pay a fine of $1,000, and spend twelve weekends in jail. His timely motion for new trial was denied. He brings this appeal enumerating error on the general grounds and on the special ground that the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial based upon the testimony of state's witnesses putting his character into issue by adverting to an uncharged possession of marijuana occurring two weeks after the sale. Held :

1. The principal issue in this case relates to identity. The jury was warranted in believing that on July 26, 1978, a police officer acting as an undercover agent went to a location known as a notorious drug outlet. The officer was looking for a particular person. Several persons, including appellant Laws, were asked if that suspect was about. Laws did not know the whereabouts of the suspect but asked if he (Laws) could help. When told by the officer that he wanted to purchase some marijuana, Laws volunteered to sell marijuana at $4 a bag rather than the usual $5 asking price. The officer purchased two bags. These were turned over to the crime lab for analysis and proved to be marijuana. The officer was positive in his identification that the appellant was the person who sold the two bags of marijuana. In his defense, appellant denied the sale or being present when the sale took place. He offered evidence in the nature of an alibi.

After a jury has returned a verdict of guilty and the defendant seeks a reversal of his conviction by arguing that the trial court erred in failing to grant a motion for new trial on the general grounds, the only question presenting itself to the appellate court is whether there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict. Bethay v. State, 235 Ga. 371, 219 S.E.2d 743. It is the function of the jury, not the appellate court, to determine the credibility of witnesses and weigh any conflicts in the evidence. The appellate court views the evidence in a light most favorable to the jury's verdict after it has been rendered. Watts v. State, 239 Ga. 725, 727(1), 238 S.E.2d 894; Ridley v. State, 236 Ga. 147, 223 S.E.2d 131. Under the facts of this case, we are satisfied that any rational trier of fact reasonably could have found proof of the essential elements of the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt. Boyd v. State, 244 Ga. 130, 132, 259 S.E.2d 71; Turner v. State, 151 Ga.App. 169, 170, 259 S.E.2d 171. The first three enumerations of error based upon the general grounds are without merit.

2. In his last enumeration of error, Laws argues that it was error to allow police officers to testify that about two weeks after the sale, they were at the same location as was the earlier sale. They saw Laws outside a convenience store and observed Laws make what appeared to be a hasty retreat into the store. The officers followed Laws into the store and observed him drop two bags to the floor in the back part of the store. Laws was arrested "for possession of marijuana." Upon objection and motion for mistrial, the trial court gave a lengthy and...