After a jury trial, Helen Yvette Perkins was convicted of trafficking in cocaine and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Because the amount of cocaine involved was more than 400 grams of a mixture that was 70 percent pure, Perkins was sentenced to serve the mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years and ordered to pay a $1,000,000 fine in accordance with OCGA § 16-13-31 a 1 C.1 On appeal, Perkins argues that the trial court erred in forbidding an expert witness to testify about the specific mandatory, minimum sentence imposed for trafficking in cocaine. Perkins also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the denial of her motion to suppress. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the convictions. 1. This is the second appearance of this case in this court. In Perkins v. State “Perkins I “,2 Perkins filed an interlocutory appeal, raising the same argument that she raises herein; i.e., that the trial court should have allowed her to cross examine the state’s expert witness about the specific mandatory minimum sentence and fine for trafficking in cocaine.3 Perkins argued that this testimony was crucial to her ability to explain to the jury that a dealer would have an incentive to trust an innocent person to transport valuable drugs.4 We found no error in the trial court’s ruling.5 Although the “law of the case” rule has been statutorily abolished, any ruling by the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals in a case shall be binding in all subsequent proceedings in that case in the lower court and in the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals as the case may be. OCGA § 9-11-60 h. This law of the case rule . . . applies . . . to rulings made by appellate courts in criminal cases.6 Therefore, our earlier decision is controlling on this issue. Consequently, this enumerated error fails.
2. Perkins argues that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction for trafficking in cocaine because the state established nothing more than her spatial proximity to the cocaine.7 We disagree.