Visser v. State
| Decision Date | 28 April 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. A99A0584.,A99A0584. |
| Citation | 516 S.E.2d 840,237 Ga. App. 798 |
| Parties | VISSER v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
William C. Davison, Augusta, for appellant.
Michael H. Crawford, District Attorney, Robert D. Cullifer, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
Terry Visser appeals his convictions for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, driving under the influence, driving with a prohibited substance, and possession of less than one ounce of marijuana. He contends the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions.
1. Although Visser contends the evidence presented is insufficient to sustain his convictions, his argument focuses solely on his conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. As Visser did not present argument on his other convictions, any issue concerning the sufficiency of the evidence to support those convictions is abandoned. Court of Appeals Rule 27(c)(2); Bicknell v. Joyce Sportswear Co., 173 Ga. App. 897, 898(3), 328 S.E.2d 564 (1985); Sepulvado v. Daniels Lincoln-Mercury, 170 Ga. App. 109(1), 316 S.E.2d 554 (1984).
2. On appeal, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict. Further, Visser no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence, and the appellate court determines the sufficiency of the evidence and neither weighs the evidence nor judges the credibility of the witnesses. Grant v. State, 195 Ga.App. 463, 464(1), 393 S.E.2d 737 (1990).
Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence shows that after receiving information Visser would be driving one of his cars to go purchase a quantity of marijuana, an officer saw Visser drive off. That night officers saw Visser returning to the county and, after following Visser's vehicle, saw him driving erratically and pulled him over. Initially, the officers detected a strong odor of flowers or deodorant in the car, but when the air cleared one of the officers smelled what he believed to be burnt marijuana. Upon further investigation, including the use of a drug dog, a cola box containing over a pound of marijuana was found on the floor behind the front passenger bucket seat. This marijuana was the basis for the possession with intent to distribute charge.
Visser's defense to this charge was that the marijuana did not belong to him. He claimed he did not know the marijuana was in his car and that a former girlfriend also had access to the car. Therefore, he asserted that under the equal access rule he was entitled to an acquittal.
In this context, the equal access rule is merely that when there is evidence that someone other than the driver of the automobile had equal access to the contraband, the presumption that contraband found in an automobile is in the exclusive possession of the driver may be overcome. Lombardo v. State, 187...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State
...18. See id.; Graham v. State, supra. 19. Carlisle v. State, 242 Ga.App. 253, 255(1), 529 S.E.2d 385 (2000). 20. Visser v. State, 237 Ga.App. 798, 800, 516 S.E.2d 840 (1999); Knox v. State, 216 Ga.App. 90, 92(3), 453 S.E.2d 120 (1995); Newman v. State, 216 Ga.App. 73, 74-75(3), 453 S.E.2d 11......
-
Giacini v. State
...619 S.E.2d 609 (2005); Glidewell v. State, 279 Ga.App. 114, 123(7)(c), 630 S.E.2d 621 (2006) (whole court). 20. Visser v. State, 237 Ga.App. 798, 799(2), 516 S.E.2d 840 (1999). 21. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). 22. Causey v. State, 274 Ga.App. 506,......
-
Tran v. State
...16. (Punctuation omitted; emphasis in original.) Taylor v. State, 209 Ga.App. 38, 39, 433 S.E.2d 87 (1993). 17. Visser v. State, 237 Ga.App. 798, 800(2), 516 S.E.2d 840 (1999). 18. See Mathis v. State, 204 Ga.App. 896, 897(1), 420 S.E.2d 788 (1992) ("The equal access rule is not properly in......
- Dover v. State, A99A0354.