Court Opinion

ID: 9604950
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:28:47.058078+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:07:30.974858
License: Public Domain

Andrews, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent because I believe the evidence was sufficient to convict Brookins of trafficking in cocaine.
Construed to uphold the verdict, Thomas v. State, 173 Ga. App. 810, 812 (2) (328 SE2d 422) (1985), the evidence at trial showed that Brookins and Mack, cousins of Nannette Powell, who was renting the residence searched, had visited Powell in May 1990 and came again on Friday, September 29, to stay with her for several days. There were two bedrooms in the house, described by the officers as the west/ left and east/right bedrooms. Powell, who testified, stated that Brook-ins and Mack stayed in the children’s bedroom, which was the west/ left bedroom and contained a medium-sized bed and one small twin bed. She and occasionally her boyfriend stayed in the eást/right bedroom. Neither she nor her children, who were young, owned any suitcases.
On Saturday morning, September 30, Mack and Brookins brought in their luggage. Brookins had the larger suitcase and Mack had a smaller one and a hanging bag. The luggage was placed by them in the children’s room.
Between September 30 and October 2, a confidential informant contacted police and advised that drugs were being sold from the residence. Agents went with the informant who was searched, given a *761marked $20 bill, and observed going into the house where he remained two or three minutes before coming out and being searched again by the officers. The twenty was not on him but a rock of crack cocaine was. Based on that information, the officers obtained a search warrant on October 2.
Decided January 31, 1992
Reconsideration denied February 11, 1992.
Russell T. Duraski, for appellant.
Upon executing the warrant on Tuesday, October 2, the officers . observed Nannette Powell in the kitchen area, Brookins coming out of the bathroom, Tony Powell, Nannette’s brother, asleep on the living room floor, and Mack.1 Officer Williams searched the children’s bedroom, also described by the officer as the west bedroom, and found under the bed a suitcase which contained a cookie can with a false bottom. The bottom contained 149.8 grams of cocaine in “cookie” form. Also found in a side pouch of the suitcase were over 12 grams of cocaine.
A small quantity of marijuana was found on the sink in the bathroom. In the east bedroom were found a .38 pistol, over $1,800 in cash rolled up, including the marked twenty, and a set of scales of the type used for drug transactions. Powell said the money belonged to her boyfriend who was not present during the raid and was not charged.
The court fully instructed the jury on actual and constructive possesion, sole and joint possession, and parties to a crime. See Sanders v. State, 199 Ga. App. 671, 672 (2) 405 SE2d 727) (1991).
Considering all of this evidence as we may do in ruling on the denial of a motion for directed verdict at the close of the State’s case, Rose v. State, 195 Ga. App. 399, 400 (393 SE2d 459) (1990), the evidence did not mandate a directed verdict under OCGA § 17-9-1. While there may be some inconsistencies among the agents’ testimony regarding which bedroom was which, such conflicts in the evidence would alone not justify grant of such a motion. Resolution of those conflicts was solely for the jury. OCGA § 24-9-80. It is not the province of this court to reweigh that evidence, only to determine its legal sufficiency. Holcomb v. State, 198 Ga. App. 547 (402 SE2d 520) (1991). Here, I find the evidence to be legally sufficient. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979); Sanders, supra; Holcomb, supra.
I am authorized to state that Judge Pope, Judge Beasley end Judge Arnold Shulman join in this dissent.
*762Douglas C. Pullen, District Attorney, Edward F. Berry, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

 Another individual, Hiram, was also present but was allowed to leave by the officers.