Mobley v. State

• Decision Date: 24 February 1989
• Docket Number: No. 77853,77853
• Citation: 380 S.E.2d 290,190 Ga.App. 771
• Parties: MOBLEY v. The STATE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 290

380 S.E.2d 290

190 Ga.App. 771

MOBLEY v. The STATE.

No. 77853.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Feb. 24, 1989.

Rehearing Denied March 14, 1989.

Certiorari Denied April 13, 1989.

Richard D. Phillips, Ludowici, for appellant.

Glenn Thomas, Jr., Dist. Atty., Richard H. Taylor, John B. Johnson III, Asst. Dist. Attys., for appellee.

CARLEY, Chief Judge.

Appellant was tried before a jury and convicted of possession of marijuana and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He appeals from the judgments of conviction and sentences entered on the jury's guilty verdicts.

1. The evidence adduced at trial showed that appellant resided in a house that he shared only with his wife and their small child. Acting pursuant to a search warrant, police officers discovered marijuana in various locations throughout appellant's house. Five bags were found in a hutch in the dining room. In the bedroom, another bag and a bottle containing marijuana were found. In addition, three bottles of marijuana seeds were found in the refrigerator and another bottle of seeds was discovered in the bedroom. Two of the four bottles of seeds bore a label with appellant's name. The officers also found rolling paper, a cigarette rolling machine and a guide for growing marijuana. Under the mattress in the bedroom, four handguns were found, including a loaded .38 caliber pistol.

On this evidence, appellant, who was previously convicted of selling marijuana in 1976, enumerates as error the denial of his motion for a directed verdict of acquittal. He relies upon Smith v. State, 180 Ga.App. 657, 350 S.E.2d 302 (1986). In Smith v. State, supra at 658, 350 S.E.2d 302, this court held that "it cannot be presumed that appellant, as owner and head of the household, owned or possessed the [contraband] found therein. Since there is no other evidence to show that appellant owned or possessed the [contraband], the evidence is not sufficient to meet the standard of proof required by Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) [ (1979) ]."

In Knighton v. State, 248 Ga. 199, 200(2), 282 S.E.2d 102 (1981), the Supreme Court held "that a permissive, or rebuttable, presumption that contraband found in a house belongs to the husband by virtue of his statutory status [under former OCGA § 19-3-8] as head of the household cannot withstand due-process scrutiny.... In other words, the fact that the husband has been declared by statute to be the head of the household does not render it 'more likely than not' that he is the possessor of contraband found therein. [Cit.]" (Emphasis supplied.) It is clear, however, that the holding in Knighton is not so broad as to render unconstitutional any and all rebuttable presumptions regarding the possession of contraband. "The following is an example of a rebuttable presumption, concerning the possession of contraband, which does pass constitutional muster: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I charge you that if you find that a person owns or is the lessee of a house or premises, you will be permitted, but not required, to presume that such person is in possession of the entire premises and all the property thereon or therein. However, this is a rebuttable presumption and may be overcome by evidence in the case that others had access to the premises. Whether or not this presumption is drawn from proof that a person is the owner or lessee of a house or premises, and whether or not the presumption once it is drawn has been overcome by proof that others had access to the premises, are questions for the jury alone. I further charge you, in that connection, that if you find that the house or premises were used by others, with the defendant, such evidence would not alone authorize a conviction, but such a fact, if it is a fact, should be considered by the jury together with all the evidence in the case in passing upon the guilt or innocence of the defendant." (Emphasis supplied.) Knighton v. State, supra 248 Ga. at 200(2), 282 S.E.2d 102, fn. 1. Thus, notwithstanding the unconstitutionality of a rebuttable presumption of possession as against a husband, there is a viable rebuttable presumption of possession, without regard to gender or marital status, as against the owner or lessee of the premises where the contraband is found. It follows that, insofar as Smith v. State, supra 180 Ga.App. at 657, 350 S.E.2d 302, holds that "ownership of the premises does not raise a presumption that the owner possessed all property contained therein[,]" it is in conflict with controlling Supreme Court authority and, accordingly, that decision is hereby overruled. (Emphasis supplied.)

Although the evidence in the present case does show that appellant is a husband, it also shows he is the owner or lessee of the premises where the drugs and the firearms were found. Based upon this evidence, the jury was accordingly "permitted, but not required, to presume that [he was] in possession of the entire premises and all the property thereon or therein[,]" including the drugs and firearms. Knighton v. State, supra 248 Ga. at 200(2), fn. 1, 282 S.E.2d 102. Appellant's wife was the only other adult who was shown to have access to the premises. It is clear, however, that the evidence that appellant's wife had access to the premises does not demand a finding that the presumption as against appellant had been rebutted. The presumption as against the owner or lessee is only rebutted by evidence that "persons 'other than the defendant and members of his immediate household ' had equal opportunity to commit the crime. [Cits.]" (Emphasis in original.) Allums v. State, 161 Ga.App. 842, 845, 288 S.E.2d 783 (1982). Since appellant's wife was a member of appellant's immediate household, it follows that evidence of her access would not be sufficient to rebut, as a matter of law, the initial presumption which arose against appellant and that such evidence would not demand appellant's acquittal under the "equal access" rule. Instead, the totality of the evidence was such as to be inculpatory of appellant's wife without being exculpatory of appellant because the jury was authorized to find that they had shared non-exclusive and joint possession of the drugs and the firearms was authorized. See generally Luke v. State, 178 Ga.App. 614, 615(1), 344 S.E.2d 452 (1986); Barnes v. State, 175 Ga.App. 621, 334 S.E.2d 205 (1985); McLeod v. State, 170 Ga.App. 415, 417(3), 317 S.E.2d 253 (1984); Kenerleber v. State, 137 Ga.App. 618, 224 S.E.2d 476 (1976). "As in Prescott v. State, 164 Ga.App. 671, 672(1) (297 SE2d 362) (1982), so here: 'Appellant made no affirmative showing ... that anyone other than himself and his wife had had actual access to the [premises] during several days or weeks prior to the discovery of the [drugs and firearms].' " (Emphasis supplied.) Barnes v. State, supra 175 Ga.App. at 626(1), 334 S.E.2d 205.

There is no requirement that the State must in every case prove that contraband was in the exclusive possession of one who is otherwise shown to be the owner or lessee of the premises. While evidence that the defendant-owner or lessee shared the premises with another does not demand a conviction, it may nevertheless authorize the jury, as the trior of fact, to find that the defendant was in at least joint possession of the contraband. In the present case, the presumption that arose against appellant as the owner or lessee of the premises was not rebutted as a matter of law and "[t]he jury was authorized to find that appellant had at least joint possession of the [drugs and the firearms]. [Cits.]" Lane v. State, 177 Ga.App. 553, 554(1), 340 S.E.2d 228 (1986). As to both of appellant's convictions, the trial court correctly denied appellant's motion for a directed verdict of acquittal.

2. The trial court sentenced appellant for felony possession of marijuana. See OCGA § 16-13-30(j)(2). Appellant enumerates his sentence as error, urging that he should have been sentenced for misdemeanor possession of one ounce or less of marijuana. See OCGA § 16-13-2(b).

The evidence clearly authorized a finding that appellant was in possession of more than one ounce of marijuana. However, even if the evidence in the present case had demanded a finding that appellant was in possession of less than one ounce of marijuana, his applicable sentence would nevertheless be for the commission of a felony. Only a "person [who] would have...