Appellant's sister called police after overhearing a telephone conversation by appellant indicating he dealt in drugs, and she gave consent to search the apartment. Ford contends his bedroom was not a common area over which his sister had control or access, that he paid rent for the use of the apartment, and that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in it and did not assume the risk that his sister would consent to a search of it, under United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 171 ( 94 SC 988, 39 L.Ed.2d 242), as quoted and relied on by State v. Stewart, 191 Ga. App. 750 ( 382 S.E.2d 677) and State v. Oliver, 183 Ga. App. 92 ( 357 S.E.2d 889). Appellant also relies on Davis v. State, 262 Ga. 578, 581, fn. 3 ( 422 S.E.2d 546), where in affirming our decision at 202 Ga. App. 629 ( 414 S.E.2d 902) the court nevertheless said: "No expectation of privacy is more reasonable than that which one has in one's bedroom."

Tom and Brenda Stewart were indicted for the arson of their business premises. The trial court granted their motion to suppress evidence seized during a warrantless search of a mini-warehouse, and this court affirmed that decision in State v. Stewart, 191 Ga. App. 750 ( 382 S.E.2d 677) (1989). The United States Supreme Court vacated this court's judgment and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (110 SC 2793, 111 L.Ed.2d 148) (1990).

Daniel, Ga. Criminal Trial Practice, (1997) § 4-2 . Consequently, we disagree with the State's contention that defendant had a diminished expectation of privacy in the closed container (refrigerator) in the once-locked storage unit he rented. See, e.g., State v. Stewart, 191 Ga. App. 750 ( 382 S.E.2d 677), judgment adhered to after remand, 203 Ga. App. 829 ( 418 S.E.2d 110). (c) We agree with the trial court that the marijuana contained in an operating, closed refrigerator was not in the plain view of Investigator Vick. "[It] has long been settled that objects falling in the plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be introduced in evidence.

This court affirmed the grant of defendants' motion to suppress evidence seized in a search. State v. Stewart, 191 Ga. App. 750 ( 382 S.E.2d 677) (1989). Motion for rehearing and certiorari were denied. Our remittitur was sent to the trial court and filed there in October.

In the context of involuntary manslaughter, a defendant is liable for the "direct, normal and reasonably inevitable" results of his conduct. State v. Losey (1985), 23 Ohio App.3d 93, 23 OBR 158, 491 N.E.2d 379; State v. Chambers (1977), 53 Ohio App.2d 266, 7 O.O.3d 326, 373 N.E.2d 393; State v. Stewart (May 18, 1989), Cuyahoga App. No. 55398, unreported, 1989 WL 54351. "* * * [W]hen a person, acting individually or in concert with another, sets in motion a sequence of events, the foreseeable consequences of which were known or should have been known to him at the time, he is criminally liable for the direct, proximate and reasonably inevitable consequences of death resulting from his original criminal act."