Poteet v. State
Decision Date | 07 January 2021 |
Docket Number | A20A1728 |
Citation | 853 S.E.2d 671,358 Ga.App. 82 |
Parties | POTEET v. The STATE. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Richard K. Murray, for Appellant.
Benjamin Bruce Kenemer, Herbert McIntosh Poston Jr., Geoffrey Scott Bard, for Appellee.
A jury convicted Mari Wilene Poteet of possession of methamphetamine ( OCGA § 16-13-30 (a) ). Poteet appeals, contending that the evidence against her is insufficient to sustain her conviction and that her trial counsel was ineffective. For the reasons that follow, we agree that the evidence is insufficient and we reverse her conviction.
"On appeal from a criminal conviction, a defendant no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence, and the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict." (Citation omitted.) Walker v. State , 349 Ga. App. 188, 825 S.E.2d 578 (2019).
So viewed, the evidence shows that, following a controlled buy of methamphetamine from Douglas Cathey by a confidential informant, police executed a search warrant for Cathey's home. Poteet was inside Cathey's home at the time. During the search of the home, police located a glass pipe inside a flower pot. The pipe tested positive for methamphetamine. The pipe also had a red tint on it that looked to the police officers like residue from red or purple lipstick. Both Cathey and Poteet denied ownership of the pipe. When police and a parole officer at the scene asked Poteet if she would pass a drug test for methamphetamine, she responded that she did not know if she would. Specifically, Poteet told them that she used methamphetamine approximately three days prior.
Importantly, no evidence was introduced that the pipe had been tested for finger prints or DNA, or that the reddish substance on the pipe was tested to confirm if it was lipstick. There was also not evidence that Poteet owned any lipstick, nor that any lipstick was found in the search of Cathey's home. Lastly, there was no evidence that the pipe had been recently smoked.
Poteet was arrested and indicted for possession of methamphetamine. Following a jury trial, she was convicted. The trial court denied Poteet's motion for new trial, as amended, and she now appeals.
1. Poteet contends the evidence against her is insufficient to sustain her conviction.1 We agree.
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Armstrong v. State , 298 Ga. App. 855, 856 (1), 681 S.E.2d 662 (2009). However, even under this forgiving standard, "the State is required to produce evidence of some meaningful connection between the defendant and the contraband." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Brown v. State , 285 Ga. App. 330, 331, 646 S.E.2d 273 (2007).
Poteet was convicted for possession of methamphetamine as a result of the pipe with drug residue being found in the flower pot in Cathey's residence.
(Citation omitted.) Id. at 331-332, 646 S.E.2d 273.
As no direct evidence connects [Poteet] to the [pipe with methamphetamine residue] found in the [flower pot in Cathey's residence], if [her] conviction for possession of [methamphetamine] is to be sustained it must be based upon circumstantial evidence. When a conviction depends entirely on circumstantial evidence, however, the circumstantial evidence must be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt and must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis.
Morrison v. State , 220 Ga. App. 151, 153 (1) (a), 469 S.E.2d 686 (1996).
Here, it is undisputed that Poteet was not in actual possession of the drugs, which were found inside of a flower pot in a residence which is neither owned nor occupied by Poteet. The evidence relied upon by the State to connect Poteet to the drugs on the pipe, other than her presence in the residence where it was located, is the presence of a substance which may or may not be lipstick residue on the pipe, Poteet's gender, and Poteet's admission that she smoked methamphetamine recently enough that she might fail a drug screen. That is all.
There is no evidence that the residue on the pipe is actually lipstick. Even if we assume the residue is lipstick, there is no evidence that Poteet owned any lipstick, let alone the particular lipstick found on the pipe. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fincher v. The State
...and the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Poteet v. State , 358 Ga. App. 82, 853 S.E.2d 671 (2021).So viewed, the evidence showed that Fincher was a drug dealer and addict. He had relationships with several drug addict......
-
Beyond Meat, Inc. v. Don Lee Farms
... ... When the courts of one state give effect to the law of another state, they do so because of comity. The enforcement of a foreign law and contracts dependent thereon for validity, ... ...