Little v. State
| Decision Date | 22 February 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 69611,69611 |
| Citation | 173 Ga.App. 512,326 S.E.2d 859 |
| Parties | LITTLE v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Kenneth D. Feldman, Atlanta, for appellant.
Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Joseph J. Drolet, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Jerry Little was convicted of four counts of violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act: possessing cocaine with intent to distribute; possessing marijuana with intent to distribute; possessing methadone; and possessing diazepam. He enumerates two errors on appeal. Held:
1. Appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict of acquittal based on equal access to the premises. Appellant correctly posits that " '[m]erely finding contraband on premises occupied by a defendant is not sufficient to support a conviction if it affirmatively appears from the evidence that persons other than the defendant had equal opportunity to commit the crime'." Jones v. State, 151 Ga.App. 560, 561, 260 S.E.2d 555; Gee v. State, 121 Ga.App. 41, 172 S.E.2d 480. However, the evidence in this case did not show mere equal access.
The premises in this case was a house used as a "dope house" and "shot house," where drugs and alcoholic beverages were sold. Appellant was apprehended coming out of a small locked closet-cum-office in which were found cocaine, marijuana, methadone, diazepam, a cutting board, a triple beam scale, a pistol, and a large amount of cash. Appellant claimed the cash as his own. After his arrest, appellant gave to the bonding agent the address of the premises as his own. Two letters dated from one to three months before the arrest which were addressed to appellant at the premises were found in the bedroom, along with men's clothing. A state's witness testified the appellant sold drugs, operated the dope house and lived on the premises and employed the witness as bartender. A co-defendant testified that every time she went to the premises appellant was there. Teems v. State, 161 Ga.App. 339, 340, 287 S.E.2d 774. See Pamplin v. State, 164 Ga.App. 610, 298 S.E.2d 622.
2. Appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the search warrant for staleness. The affidavit recited that information as to the crime was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Knox v. State
...(Cits.)" Teems v. State, 161 Ga.App. 339, 340 (287 SE2d 774). See Pamplin v. State, 164 Ga.App. 610 (298 SE2d 622).' Little v. State, 173 Ga.App. 512(1) (326 SE2d 859)." Johnston v. State, 178 Ga.App. 219(1), 220, 342 S.E.2d 706. Although not separately enumerated, defendant's admission tha......
-
Skipworth v. State
...that the CONDITIONS described in the affidavit still prevailed at the time of the issuance of the warrant.' " Little v. State, 173 Ga.App. 512, 513, 326 S.E.2d 859 (1985). See also Landers v. State, 183 Ga.App. 691(2), 359 S.E.2d 748 (1987); Ayers v. State, 181 Ga.App. 244(5b), 351 S.E.2d 6......
-
Johnston v. State
...(Cits.)' Teems v. State, 161 Ga.App. 339, 340 (287 SE2d 774). See Pamplin v. State, 164 Ga.App. 610 (298 SE2d 622)." Little v. State, 173 Ga.App. 512 (1), 326 S.E.2d 859. The evidence was sufficient to enable any rational trier of fact to find defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of t......
-
Singleton v. State
...finding, the jury's verdict will be sustained. Johnston v. State, 178 Ga.App. 219, 220(1), 342 S.E.2d 706 (1986); Little v. State, 173 Ga.App. 512(1), 326 S.E.2d 859 (1985). Applying the above legal principles to the facts of this case, the evidence was sufficient so that a rational finder ......