Given these circumstances, the jury was authorized to find that Goforth was in joint constructive possession of the methamphetamine and was a party to the crime of the sale and trafficking of the drug.SeeOsorio v. State , 323 Ga. App. 843, 844-45 (1), 748 S.E.2d 483 (2013) (holding that evidence the defendant was person on phone call discussing sale of methamphetamine and was in vehicle where drugs were recovered was sufficient to show he was party to crime of trafficking); Valdez , 310 Ga. App. at 276-77 (1), 712 S.E.2d 656 (holding that evidence the defendant drove co-defendants and the cocaine to location for transaction, warned his co-defendants that the buyer was a police officer, and took possession of the funds used for the transaction was sufficient to show that defendant participated and intentionally aided in the commission of the drug trafficking offense); Culajay v. State , 309 Ga. App. 631, 634 (1), 710 S.E.2d 846 (2011) (holding that evidence the defendant helped arrange undercover officer's purchase of over 200 grams of methamphetamine was sufficient that he "was, at a minimum, a party to trafficking in methamphetamine" (punctuation omitted)); Navarro v. State , 293 Ga. App. 329, 331-32, 667 S.E.2d 125 (2008) (h
OCGA § 16–13–31(e) (2008). “It is not necessary that a defendant have actual and exclusive possession of the contraband; possession may be joint and constructive.” Osorio v. State, 323 Ga.App. 843, 844(1), 748 S.E.2d 483 (2013). “A person who, though not in actual possession, knowingly has both the power and intention at a given time to exercise dominion or control over a thing is then in constructive possession of it,” and if two or more persons “shared ... constructive possession of a thing, possession is joint.”