Williams v. State
| Decision Date | 21 April 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. A06A0614.,A06A0614. |
| Citation | 279 Ga. App. 83,630 S.E.2d 601 |
| Parties | WILLIAMS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
William B. Barnwell, Avrett, Ponder & Withrock, Dalton, for Appellant.
Kermit N. McManus, District Attorney, Forest L. Miles, Assistant District Attorney for Appellee.
A jury found Edward Williams guilty of trafficking in methamphetamine, possession with the intent to distribute methamphetamine, possession of carisoprodol1 (a controlled substance under OCGA § 16-13-28(a) (2.25)), and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. Williams appeals, contending that insufficient evidence supports his convictions and that the trial court erred by allowing the State to present evidence of a similar transaction. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm all of Williams' convictions except the possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime, which we reverse because insufficient evidence supports it.2
On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, and the appellant no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence; moreover, this court determines evidence sufficiency and does not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility. Williams v. State, 217 Ga.App. 636, 638(3), 458 S.E.2d 671 (1995). Viewed in this light, the record shows that a confidential informant arranged a controlled buy of methamphetamine from Williams. The buy was recorded on audiotape and the informant identified Williams' voice on the tape. The informant went to Williams' house, walked to the end of the driveway near the entrance of a stand-alone garage, and yelled for Williams. When Williams appeared in the driveway (from a location that cannot be determined from the trial testimony), he acted as if he were high on methamphetamine. He seemed to see something on the driveway that was not there as if he were hallucinating, and "was extremely wired up and just talking a lot of nonsense." The informant made arrangements to purchase methamphetamine and Williams told him the drugs he made were wonderful and strong. After the informant gave Williams the money, they walked to a house next door to obtain the drugs, which tested positive for methamphetamine and weighed a little over one gram. After obtaining the methamphetamine, the informant left and turned it over to the police, who had visually monitored the buy.
The informant also testified that he talked with Williams about how to make methamphetamine, that Williams instructed him about the ingredients he would need, and that Williams offered to show him how to make it. Finally, the informant testified that the methamphetamine he purchased from Williams was unique because it was a "really nasty looking" dark green. It was the first time the informant had ever seen dark green methamphetamine; its more usual colors are white, pink, or clear.
When the police executed a search warrant for Williams' residence, they discovered materials used to make methamphetamine and a dark green substance containing more than 28 grams of methamphetamine in the garage. They also found carisoprodol. Two police officers testified that a gun was also found in the garage, but neither of these officers personally observed the gun in this location. When the police first entered the garage, they found Williams in there, five to ten feet from the door, walking toward them with a knife in his hand. When the police told Williams they were looking for a meth lab, Williams claimed that people who had just left his residence "had been in his garage cooking meth."
The similar transaction showed that Williams entered a residence that had just been searched by police pursuant to a warrant after all marked police cars, but not all unmarked police cars, had left. When a police officer who had remained searched Williams, he discovered several plastic bags containing several grams of methamphetamine. At the time of his arrest, Williams acknowledged that the methamphetamine was his and he subsequently pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine.
1. We find this evidence sufficient to support Williams' drug convictions under the standard set forth in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Williams' place of residence, his sale to the informant of similar green methamphetamine, his location at the time of his arrest, and his admissions to the informant and the police provide an adequate link between Williams and the drugs found in the garage.
2. Because...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davenport v. the State.Walsh v. the State.
...possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime can be either actual or constructive[,]” citing only Cabrera v. State, 42 Williams v. State,43 and Respress v. State.44 However, these cases concern constructive possession and the equal-access rule in the context of drug possession, ......
-
Santiago v. State
...veracity and competence of persons other than the testifying officer, making it hearsay. See OCGA § 24–3–1(a); Williams v. State, 279 Ga.App. 83, 85(2), 630 S.E.2d 601 (2006) (officers' testimony that gun was within arm's reach of defendant was hearsay, where officers had not personally obs......
- In re A.H., No. A06A0532.
-
Swan v. State
...offense and the crime charged, so that "proof of the former tends to prove the latter." (Citation omitted.) Williams v. State, 279 Ga.App. 83, 86(3), 630 S.E.2d 601 (2006). This Court will not disturb the trial court's decision to admit similar transaction evidence unless it is clearly erro......