Taylor v. State

The totality of the evidence, including the defendant's spatial proximity to the drugs, his possession of drug paraphernalia and similar transaction evidence, was sufficient to authorize his conviction for possession of methamphetamine.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

An officer discovered methamphetamine in the backseat of his patrol car immediately after transporting James Russell Taylor to jail. A jury found Taylor guilty of possession of methamphetamine, and the trial court denied his motion for a new trial. On appeal, Taylor contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a directed verdict of acquittal; by allowing the testimony of a state’s witness whose name was not disclosed to the defense prior to voir dire; and by allowing similar transaction evidence because the notice of the state’s intent to introduce such evidence did not fully comply with Uniform Superior Court Rule “USCR” 31.3. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. 1. We review the denial of a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal under the same standard applicable to a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Jackson v. State , 236 Ga. App. 260 511 SE2d 615 1999. “Under that standard, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Citation and punctuation omitted. Id. See Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U. S. 307 99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560 1979.

Viewed in this light, the evidence showed that in the late afternoon of March 21, 2006, a patrol officer with the Georgia Department of Public Safety stopped an extended cab pickup truck pulling a trailer with an improperly secured forklift. The truck had three occupants, including Taylor, who was the owner of the truck and was riding in the front passenger seat. After making the stop, the officer approached the truck in order to address the commercial vehicle safety violation with the driver.1 The officer asked the driver to exit from the truck and observed that he was unsteady on his feet, was sweating heavily, and had red eyes, such that the driver appeared to be under the influence of some type of drug. Based upon his observations, the officer returned to his patrol car and radioed for backup.

Taylor v. State

The totality of the evidence, including the defendant's spatial proximity to the drugs, his possession of drug paraphernalia and similar transaction evidence, was sufficient to authorize his conviction for possession of methamphetamine.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report