Magnum v. State

The jury was authorized to consider the rebuttable presumption that the defendant, as the sole driver of the stolen vehicle in question, had possession of and control over the contraband contained within that vehicle.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Following a jury trial, Gary Lamar Magnum was convicted of possession of methamphetamine, possession of marijuana, theft by receiving of a motor vehicle, fleeing and attempting to elude, reckless driving, two counts of obstruction, and driving with a suspended license, and was sentenced as a recidivist. Mr. Magnum argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his drug convictions and that the trial court erred in allowing similar-transaction evidence to be introduced at his trial. We find no reversible error and affirm. On appeal from a criminal conviction, we view the record in the light most favorable to upholding the jury’s verdict, and Mr. Magnum no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence.1 We neither reweigh the evidence nor assess witness credibility, but determine only whether a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt.2

So construed, the evidence adduced at trial showed that on the morning of February 2, 2007, the victim discovered that her green Mercury Mystique had been stolen from the front yard of her Hall County home, and then reported the theft to the proper authorities. Approximately one week later, a uniformed police officer in a neighboring county was on routine patrol when he noticed that a green Mercury Mystique being driven by Mr. Magnum did not have a proper tag light. The officer began to follow Mr. Magnum because of this equipment violation and, after observing him make a suspicious maneuver, relayed the vehicle’s license-plate number to dispatch. The dispatcher informed the officer that the vehicle had been reported stolen, prompting the officer to request backup assistance and turn on his car-mounted video camera in preparation for a traffic stop.

Magnum v. State

The jury was authorized to consider the rebuttable presumption that the defendant, as the sole driver of the stolen vehicle in question, had possession of and control over the contraband contained within that vehicle.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report