Thomas v. State

O.C.G.A. § 16-13-31 b does not require the state to prove the purity or set forth a purity threshold for any substance containing heroin.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

A jury found Carnell Jerrard Thomas guilty of trafficking in heroin pursuant to OCGA § 16-13-31 b 3. Thomas appeals from the conviction entered on the verdict and the denial of his motion for new trial, claiming that i the evidence introduced against him was insufficient to support his conviction, ii the trial court erred in denying his motion to require the state to determine the purity of the heroin he sold to an undercover officer, and iii his trial counsel was ineffective. We find no error and affirm. 1. When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence used to support a conviction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, and the defendant no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence. We do not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility, but only determine if the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find the defendant guilty of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt.1 So viewed, the evidence shows that on March 4, 2005, an undercover officer with the Gwinnett County Drug Task Force arranged to meet with a man, later identified as Thomas, who was interested in selling heroin. When Thomas met the officer, he sold him two small baggies that he offered as “samples” of the heroin he was selling. Thomas told the officer that the baggies contained “two different types” of heroin, and that he should call him and let him know “which one he liked the best.” The substance contained in the baggies later tested positive for heroin, and Thomas pled guilty to selling a controlled substance pursuant to OCGA § 16-13-30 b in connection with this transaction.

During the next several days, Thomas contacted the officer numerous times to find out when he would be making another purchase. The officer ultimately agreed to buy two ounces of heroin as well as four ounces of cocaine. While the price for the heroin was what the officer expected, the price that Thomas quoted for the cocaine was so low that the officer suspected it might be “fake dope.”

Thomas v. State

O.C.G.A. § 16-13-31 b does not require the state to prove the purity or set forth a purity threshold for any substance containing heroin.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report