Cotton v. State

Background information from police officers about their experience with street-level dealers provided an adequate foundation for their expert testimony.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Omali Cotton appeals from his convictions for possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute, obstruction of an officer, giving false information to a police officer, driving with a suspended license, and failing to use a turn signal. In his sole enumeration of error, Cotton contends insufficient evidence exists to support his felony conviction for possessing marijuana with the intent to distribute. We disagree and affirm. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the record shows that in a search incident to Cotton’s arrest for driving without a license, police officers found three identical small plastic “nickel bags” of marijuana and $60 two five-dollar bills, one ten-dollar bill, and two twenty-dollar bills in the same pocket, as well as another identical small bag of marijuana on the ground near his feet. All of the marijuana in the four bags combined together weighed 2.7 grams.

The officer who arrested Cotton testified that he spent a lot of time helping a canine officer with “drug enforcement.” In his duties as a patrol officer, he would come into contact with drugs at least once a week. The officer testified that he suspected that Cotton was distributing marijuana because he was arrested in an area well-known for drug activity Ridgecrest Apartments, he did not have a smoking device, he was driving a car that did not belong to him in an apartment complex in which he did not live, personal users normally have all of their marijuana in one bag instead of separate baggies, distributors sell marijuana in small bags like the ones found on Cotton for approximately $10-20, and the denominations of the cash found in his pocket lent themselves to giving change. The combination of all these facts led the officer to believe that Cotton possessed marijuana with the intent to distribute. The officer acknowledged that his testimony was based upon his experience and information he learned from other officers and people he had previously arrested.

Cotton v. State

Background information from police officers about their experience with street-level dealers provided an adequate foundation for their expert testimony.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report