Following a jury trial, Quincy Deon Duffie was convicted of a single count of selling cocaine.1 Duffie now appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion for a new trial, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction. Duffie further asserts that the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence and in permitting the State to strike the only two potential jurors who were black. Discerning no error, we affirm. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, Drammeh v. State ,2 the evidence shows that on the afternoon of April 12, 2007, the Fitzgerald Police Department conducted an undercover drug investigation using one male confidential informant and one female confidential informant “CI”. A police detective met with the two CIs, outfitted the female CI’s truck with a hidden audio and video recording device, gave the male CI cash, and instructed the CIs to attempt to buy drugs in Fitzgerald. The CIs then drove together in the female’s truck to three different locations known for drug sales, and successfully negotiated a drug purchase at each location. One of those locations was the parking lot of a local apartment complex. The CIs testified that when they drove into that parking lot, Duffie and his stepbrother approached the truck. Duffie stuck his head in the passenger-side window and the male CI told him he wanted to buy “a 20.” Duffie responded “hold on,” and walked with his stepbrother away from the truck and towards the front of the apartment building. The stepbrother then returned to the truck with a small, plastic bag containing what appeared to be a rock of crack cocaine and handed it to the male CI. In exchange, the male CI gave Duffie’s stepbrother $20, and the CIs left the parking lot. The entire transaction was recorded, and a copy of that recording was played for the jury at trial.
The male CI placed the plastic bag containing the cocaine he purchased from Duffie and his stepbrother in the left, front pocket of his shorts. When the CIs met with the police detective later that afternoon, the male CI removed that bag from his shorts pocket, gave it to the detective and told him where they had purchased it. Both CIs and the detective then watched the video recording of the transaction and, from that recording, the detective was able to identify Duffie and his stepbrother. The detective then took the cocaine that the CIs identified as having been sold to them by Duffie, placed it into a plastic evidence bag, and sealed the same. On the bag’s label, the detective wrote the date, the location where the cocaine was purchased, and the names of Duffie and his stepbrother. The male CI witnessed the detective do all of these things. This evidence was subsequently forwarded to the State Crime Lab, where chemical testing confirmed that it was cocaine.
