Task: Text Completion
Input (English): pill bottles, and that drug users “usually” buy one piece of crack cocaine, rather than more than one “individual sale-type pieces.” The investigator’s testimony, however, was an insufficient basis upon which to predicate Hicks’s conviction. Storing drugs in a pill bottle for quick disposal, and possessing an unidentified number of sales-size pieces of the drug, without more, equally supports the hypothesis that the person found with the drugs was a user rather than a dealer. See, e.g., Bethea v. State, 220 Ga. App. 800, 801-802 (1) (470 SE2d 328) (1996) (possession of rocks of cocaine, without more, was insufficient to support inference that defendant intended to distribute the cocaine); Anderson v. State, 215 Ga. App. 426, 427-428 (1) (451 SE2d 103) (1994) (physical precedent only) (<HOLDING>). Decided October 6, 2008. Ronald R. Parker, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding the large quantity of drugs sufficient evidence of intent to distribute (B) holding that there was sufficient evidence of intent to sell or deliver where the defendant was in possession of one large cocaine rock and eight smaller rocks (C) holding there was insufficient evidence to prove intent to distribute where the defendant dropped a plastic bag containing loose white rocks of cocaine and there was no other indicia of the defendants intent such as the drugs being packaged in smaller baggies (D) holding that defendants collective possession of plastic baggies beepers and scales  in conjunction with other evasive action  was sufficient evidence for jury to find conspiracy to distribute and possess cocaine beyond reasonable doubt (E) holding no unfair prejudice from admission of conviction for possession of 50 to 200 pounds of marijuana with intent to distribute as evidence of intent to distribute cocaine
Output (English): (C)