Reese v. State

• Decision Date: 22 May 1989
• Docket Number: No. A89A0386,A89A0386
• Citation: 383 S.E.2d 149,191 Ga.App. 887
• Parties: REESE v. The STATE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 149

383 S.E.2d 149

191 Ga.App. 887

REESE v. The STATE.

No. A89A0386.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

May 22, 1989.

Rehearing Denied June 19, 1989.

Certiorari Granted Sept. 8, 1989.

Hackel & Hackel, Thomas M. Hackel, Waycross, for appellant.

Harry D. Dixon, Jr., Dist. Atty., Richard E. Currie, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.

BENHAM, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of possession with intent to distribute cocaine. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and a ruling by the trial court. We find no error and affirm the judgment.

1. Appellant contends that in this case based on circumstantial evidence, the State failed to prove his guilt to the exclusion of all other theories consistent with his innocence. The evidence adduced at trial was as follows: A detective received information from a confidential informant that cocaine and marijuana were being cut up and repackaged for resale at Charlie Hadden's residence, and that Frank Paulk, Gloria Fullmore, and Hadden, a known drug dealer, were there. When the detective arrived at the scene to investigate, all that was found was residue on the dining room table. The same informant called the officer a second time later that day and said that all of the participants were at Fullmore's residence with the contraband. The detective and two other law enforcement officers went to Fullmore's residence and saw her and an unknown man, later identified as appellant, sitting on the front porch. When the officers rode by, Ms. Fullmore jumped up, appellant said something to her, and she sat back down and waved at the officers. The officers left and, shortly thereafter, the detective received a third telephone call from the informant, who stated that a person carrying two bags had run out the back door of the Fullmore house as the officers drove by and had placed the two bags at the corner of the church behind Fullmore's residence. The detectives parked in the church yard and walked to the rear corner of the church, where they found a brown paper bag that appeared to have been recently placed there. The bag contained cocaine wrapped in aluminum foil.

A fingerprint examiner for the State Crime Lab testified that several fingerprints that matched appellant's prints were found on pieces of the aluminum foil containing cocaine found in the bag, and that a white powdery substance, cocaine, was visible on three of the prints developed on the foil.

Appellant testified that Fullmore was a close friend of his whom he visited two or three times a week, and that he often brought her hot meals covered in aluminum foil. He further testified that on the day in question, he passed by Fullmore's house, recognized Paulk's and Hadden's vehicles parked in front of it, and stopped by to see what was going on; that Fullmore came out of the house and sat outside talking with him; that they went into the house after the detectives drove by; and that when he entered the kitchen, he saw Paulk and Hadden going out the back door. Appellant said that he had never seen cocaine before the day of his trial and didn't know anything about those drugs until they were mentioned to him, and that he had no idea how his fingerprints got on the foil packets of cocaine.

" 'To warrant a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the proved facts shall not only be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt, but shall exclude every other...