Court Opinion

ID: 9852036
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:23:24.379641+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:21.364330
License: Public Domain

Deen, Judge,
dissenting. I disagree with the conclusions reached by the majority in this case for the same reason set out in the second division of my dissent in Burns v. State, 127 Ga. App. 828, because we are bound by Gee v. State, 225 Ga. 669 (5) (171 SE2d 291) holding as follows: "The possession of drugs in violation of the Georgia Drug Abuse Control Act, and the selling of the same drugs, are in law separate and distinct crimes and each is punishable,” the citations contained therein, and the statement that "there are different elements present in the two crimes of selling and possessing the prohibited drugs.” The majority of the Court of Appeals have attempted to distinguish Gee on the ground that it was decided prior to the effective date of the 1968 Georgia Criminal Code. As was pointed out in my prior dissent, I do not find that the new code changed the law as related to proof of these two offenses.
Furthermore, Gee has been cited by our Supreme Court since the effective date of the present Criminal Code. Roberts v. State, 228 Ga. 298, 299 (185 SE2d 385). It is still controlling law on this point. None of the cases cited in the majority opinion bears on the question. Price v. Georgia, 398 U. S. 323, supra, holds that one tried on a murder indictment, acquitted of murder and convicted of manslaughter, may be retried on the manslaughter *88charge only after a reversal. Benton v. Maryland, 395 U. S. 784, supra, holds that one acquitted of larceny and convicted of burglary may be retried on the burglary charge only after reversal. In each of those cases the jury acquitted on one of the two counts involved. Here the jury convicted on both, and our only question is whether the possession of drugs and the sale of drugs constitute one crime or two crimes. Gee v. State says explicitly that they constitute two crimes.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judges Hall and Eberhardt, and Judge Pannell concur in this dissent.