Honeycutt v. State

On appeal from his conviction for trafficking methamphetamine and conspiring to manufacture the drug, Jeffrey Honeycutt argues that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a directed verdict of acquittal. We affirm his conviction for trafficking but reverse his conviction for conspiring to manufacture because the record contains no evidence of an agreement between him and the alleged co-conspirator to do so. “On appeal from a criminal conviction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, with the defendant no longer enjoying a presumption of innocence.” Reese v. State , 270 Ga. App. 522, 523 607 SE2d 165 2004. We neither weigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses, but determine only whether the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find the defendant guilty of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.307 99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560 1979. We review a trial court’s denial of a defendant’s motion for directed verdict of acquittal under the same standard. Williams v. State , 237 Ga. App. 814, 815 1 515 SE2d 875 1999.

So viewed, the record shows that Honeycutt had jumped bail in Tennessee and was staying at a house in Dade County. On July 19, 2003, Melissa Reina, Honeycutt’s girlfriend and a meth user, came to the house and noticed several people there, including Honeycutt. Reina smelled a lab on the premises and knew that Honeycutt was involved in its operation. When everyone except Honeycutt and his girlfriend left the house, the two got into a violent argument, and Reina threatened to call police. Honeycutt then left the house accompanied by a dog and carrying a gun he and Reina had bought in his pants.