Shockley v. State, 65795
| Decision Date | 04 April 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 65795,65795 |
| Citation | 166 Ga.App. 182,303 S.E.2d 519 |
| Parties | SHOCKLEY v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Charles W. Smith, Jr., Gainesville, for appellant.
Bruce L. Udolf, Dist. Atty., Charles H. Frier, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Appellant was convicted of possessing marijuana in violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act and sentenced to two years imprisonment, to be followed by eight years probation. On appeal, he contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction.
On June 25, 1982, while appellant was visiting at his parents' residence, police officers arrived and searched the premises pursuant to a warrant. Ten marijuana plants, each about three feet in height, were discovered growing in flower pots next to the house, and smoking paraphernalia was found inside the house. Appellant's automobile was also searched, and a tobacco can containing a substance identified as marijuana was discovered therein. Tests on the plants performed by the State Crime Laboratory were positive for marijuana. The substance in the tobacco can was neither submitted to the State Crime Laboratory nor entered as evidence at the trial.
Present in the house with appellant at the time of the search were three other persons, including appellant's brother Chris, all of whom were indicted and tried with appellant except for one, who was a juvenile. Appellant's parents arrived home while the search was in progress. At trial, appellant denied any knowledge either of the plants found growing outside of the house or of the substance found in his car. Appellant's brother, Chris, who lived in the house with his parents, testified that he alone had grown the marijuana plants and that no one else had known about them. The jury acquitted all of the defendants except appellant and his brother. Held:
The evidence connecting appellant to the 10 marijuana plants was entirely circumstantial. "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 reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused." OCGA § 24-4-6 (Code Ann. § 38-109). Questions of reasonableness are generally decided by the jury, and this court will not disturb the jury's finding that the evidence was sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of guilt unless the verdict is unsupportable as a matter of law. Harris v. State, 236 Ga. 242, 223 S.E.2d 643 (1976); Butler v. State, 150 Ga.App. 751, 258 S.E.2d 691 (1979).
In this case the evidence showed that appellant, although related to the owner, was merely visiting the premises at the time of the execution of the warrant. Three others, at least, were present at the time of the search, including appellant's brother, who not only lived there but...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilcox v. Ford
...viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict. Hopkins v. State, 167 Ga.App. 811, 307 S.E.2d 707, 711 (1983); Shockley v. State, 166 Ga.App. 182, 303 S.E.2d 519, 520 (1983). The state courts have explained that O.C.G.A. Sec. 24-4-6 "does not mean that the act by bare possibility could h......
-
Fatora v. State
...880. Compare Ivey v. State, 226 Ga. 821(4), 177 S.E.2d 702; Prescott v. State, 164 Ga.App. 671, 673(2), 297 S.E.2d 362; Shockley v. State, 166 Ga.App. 182, 303 S.E.2d 519 and Shreve v. State, 172 Ga.App. 190, 322 S.E.2d 362, supra. See Smith v. State, 245 Ga. 205(2), 207, 264 S.E.2d 15, whe......
-
Bettes v. State
...of dealership even though defendant was guilty of stealing a vehicle from the same dealership later the same night); Shockley v. State, 166 Ga.App. 182, 303 S.E.2d 519 (1983) (circumstantial evidence that appellant was merely present at his parents' house was insufficient to convict appella......
-
Lewis v. State
...468 (1986). However, the jury's finding may be disturbed when the verdict is unsupportable as a matter of law. Shockley v. State, 166 Ga.App. 182, 303 S.E.2d 519 (1983). Our review of the evidence is governed by the principle that it must be taken in a light most favorable to the verdict. S......