Collins v. State

10 Citing cases

  1. Alexander v. The State

    901 S.E.2d 584 (Ga. Ct. App. 2024)   Cited 1 times

    (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Pate v. State, 318 Ga.'App. 526, 527 (1), 734 S.E.2d 255 (2012); accord Collins v. State, 278 Ga. App. 103, 104 (1) (a), 628 S.E.2d 148 (2006) ("Positive field test results are alone sufficient to sustain a conviction for selling or possessing cocaine. Positive test results from the State crime lab are not required.")

  2. Fortune v. State

    304 Ga. App. 294 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 10 times
    Holding that chemical field tests of suspected narcotics were scientific procedures that had been so widely accepted in Georgia courts that they were admissible in criminal jury trials without expert foundational testimony

    We note that Fortune's conviction of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute could have been based upon the cocaine found in his vehicle on the digital scale. See Collins v. State, 278 Ga. App. 103, 104 (1) (a) ( 628 SE2d 148) (2006) (positive chemical field test results sufficient to sustain drug conviction). See also Lipsey v. State, 287 Ga. App. 835, 837 (1) ( 652 SE2d 870) (2007) (noting that "possession of digital scales typically used to weigh drugs for distribution" can serve as evidence of the intent to distribute); Copeland v. State, 273 Ga. App. 850, 854 (2) ( 616 SE2d 189) (2005) ("Scales and baggies found at the same [location] as drugs are evidence of intent to distribute[.]"). Likewise, Fortune's conviction of possession of less than one ounce of marijuana could have been based upon the loose marijuana and two marijuana cigarettes discovered in the ashtray of his vehicle.

  3. Wilson v. State

    753 S.E.2d 141 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013)

    The evidence as set forth above, including the undercover officer's testimony that Wilson sold him a substance that tested positive for cocaine, was sufficient for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Wilson sold cocaine to the undercover officer. See Johnson v. State, 289 Ga.App. 206, 208, 656 S.E.2d 861 (2008) (agent's testimony regarding drug sale transaction, combined with evidence of positive field and crime lab testing was sufficient to authorize defendant's conviction for sale of cocaine); Collins v. State, 278 Ga.App. 103, 104(1)(a), 628 S.E.2d 148 (2006) (positive field test results are alone sufficient to sustain conviction for selling cocaine). Although Wilson argues that the State failed to eliminate the possibility that the undercover officer obtained the cocaine from someone other than Wilson, the officer's testimony alone was sufficient to establish that Wilson engaged in a hand-to-hand sale of suspected drugs, which later tested positive for cocaine.

  4. Cantrell v. State

    728 S.E.2d 913 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012)

    See, e.g., Quarterman v. State, 305 Ga.App. 686, 689–690(1)(a), 700 S.E.2d 674 (2010) (reversing conviction under OCGA § 16–13–32.5(b) where State failed to offer competent evidence that housing complex was “occupied by low and moderate-income families”); Williams v. State, 303 Ga.App. 222, 224(1), 692 S.E.2d 820 (2010) (same); Mahone v. State, 296 Ga.App. 373, 376(3), 674 S.E.2d 411 (2009) (same); Collins v. State, 278 Ga.App. 103, 106(1)(b), 628 S.E.2d 148 (2006) (same); Johnson v. State, 214 Ga.App. 77, 81(2), 447 S.E.2d 74 (1994) (same). In this case, there was testimony at trial that the Butler Street Apartments are “government housing” and that a sign posted at the Butler Street Apartments reads “Gainesville Housing Authority.” This testimony is sufficient to prove that the Butler Street Apartments are “under the jurisdiction of a housing authority” and consist of “dwelling units.” It is not sufficient, however, to prove that the Butler Street Apartments are occupied by low and moderate-income families.

  5. Robinson v. State

    724 S.E.2d 846 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 4 times
    Affirming conviction where evidence established that housing complex was “public assistance housing,” not merely “public housing”

    ” Here, however, the evidence showed that the incident occurred in an apartment occupied by one of the trial witnesses. 278 Ga.App. 103, 628 S.E.2d 148 (2006). Id. at 105(1)(b), 628 S.E.2d 148.

  6. Quarterman v. State

    700 S.E.2d 674 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 6 times
    Reversing conviction under OCGA § 16–13–32.5(b) where State failed to offer competent evidence that housing complex was “occupied by low and moderate-income families”

    " 278 Ga. App. 103 ( 628 SE2d 148) (2006). Id. at 105 (1) (b).

  7. Williams v. the State

    303 Ga. App. 222 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 18 times
    Concluding no harm resulted from denial of mistrial based upon State's violation of trial court's evidentiary ruling

    5 (b) must be reversed. See Mahone, 296 Ga. App. at 374-376 (3); Collins v. State, 278 Ga. App. 103, 105-106 (1) (b) ( 628 SE2d 148) (2006); Johnson v. State, 214 Ga. App. 77, 79-81 (2) ( 447 SE2d 74) (1994). Compare Barnett v. State, 276 Ga. App. 238, 240 (1) ( 623 SE2d 136) (2005) (offense established by testimony that the housing authority owned the apartments where the drug transaction occurred and that families of lower income lived there); Haywood v. State, 248 Ga. App. 210, 212 (2) ( 546 SE2d 325) (2001) (offense established by testimony that the drug crime occurred at a publicly operated low to moderate-income housing project run by the housing authority).

  8. Mahone v. State

    674 S.E.2d 411 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 4 times
    Recognizing that a development described by a witness only as a public housing project owned by a city may not fall within the definition of a housing project under OCGA § 16–13–32.5(b); conviction reversed because the only evidence to establish that the cocaine sale took place on property located within 1,000 feet of a public housing project was testimony from a narcotics investigator that the cocaine buy took place less than 1,000 feet from a government housing development; there was no testimony that the government housing development was the property of a housing authority or that it was occupied by low and moderate income families

    " 278 Ga. App. 103, 105-106 (1) (b) ( 628 SE2d 148) (2006). Id. at 105.

  9. Johnson v. State

    656 S.E.2d 861 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 18 times

    Johnson points out that although the substance found in the aspirin bottle field tested positive for cocaine, it was not tested at the state crime lab. However, field test results alone are sufficient to prove the presence of a controlled substance; state crime lab results are not required. Collins v. State, 278 Ga. App. 103, 104 (1) (a) ( 628 SE2d 148) (2006). In any event, Johnson's conviction could be sustained based solely on the cocaine in the prescription bottle found in the bathtub, which was subject to a field test as well as testing at the state crime lab.

  10. Reason v. State

    283 Ga. App. 608 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 7 times
    Holding that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence that defendant possessed cocaine when, "[a]lthough other people were present and had access to the yard, the surveilling officers testified that in the period immediately prior to the search, [the defendant] was the only person to retrieve items from the bucket where the cocaine was found, which [the defendant] did repeatedly as police watched"

    In light of this evidence, the jury was authorized to conclude that the cocaine Reason possessed was within 1,000 feet of the apartment. Collins v. State, 278 Ga. App. 103, 105 (1) (b) ( 628 SE2d 148) (2006). 2.