Lee v. State, 46978
| Decision Date | 04 April 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 46978,46978,1 |
| Citation | 189 S.E.2d 872,126 Ga.App. 38 |
| Parties | Juanita LEE v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Glenn Zell, Atlanta, for appellant.
Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Joel M. Feldman, Amber W. Anderson, Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Mrs. Juanita Lee was convicted of the offense of possessing heroin and sentenced to serve three years in the penitentiary and two additional years on probation. She appeals from the overruling of her amended motion for new trial.
1. The general grounds are without merit. Arresting officers testified that when they raised a motel room Mrs. Lee was found sitting on a bed with a beach bag beside her and her hand in the outside pocket thereof. A box of 100 capsules of heroin was in the pocket of the bag. Her disclaimer of ownership of the bag and its contents did not require the jury to find that she was not in possession thereof. Nor does it matter that other people were found in the room at the same time. Compare Tant v. State, 123 Ga.App. 760, 182 S.E.2d 502.
2. The court charged that and further charged that the jury would be authorized to convict if they should find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant 'had actual or constructive possession, either alone or jointly with others.'
Appellant enumerates as error the reference to constructive possession 'because there was no evidence to support this charge.' We disagree. The defendant, in her testimony, asserted that she did not own the bag or its contents, but admitted that 'It was on the bed near me,' and she did not remember whether she touched it or not- She admitted that she was the only person on the bed. When asked on cross...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allen v. State
...bag in that, at a given time, she knowingly had both power and intention to exercise control over the suitcase. See Lee v. State, 126 Ga.App. 38, 189 S.E.2d 872 (1972). Having found that the evidence was sufficient to establish appellant's possession of the marijuana, it necessarily follows......
-
Neal v. State
...which often so shade into one another that it is difficult to say where one ends and the other begins.' See also Lee v. State, 126 Ga.App. 38(2), 189 S.E.2d 872. 3. Appellant argues that the proved facts here failed to meet the requirements of Code § 38-109 to the effect that 'To warrant a ......
-
Bryan v. State, s. 51292
...given as to actual and constructive possession is correctly stated and nearly identical to the language approved in Lee v. State, 126 Ga.App. 38(2), 189 S.E.2d 872. These enumerations are therefore without 4. Clay's brother-in-law testified as a defense witness. On direct examination, and i......
-
Wisdom v. State
...Under this evidence, the jury was authorized to find the drugs were in the constructive possession of appellant. Lee v. State, 126 Ga.App. 38(2), 189 S.E.2d 872. Appellant also argues there was a break in the chain of custody of the drugs seized at Simuel's apartment. We do not agree as the......