Following a jury trial, Gregory Hulsey appeals his conviction for trafficking in methamphetamine, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and contending that the trial court erred a in failing to give a jury charge on mere presence and b in denying his motion to suppress evidence that was discovered when police arrested him on an arrest warrant, which warrant Hulsey claims was not supported by probable cause. We hold that the evidence supported the verdict, that a “mere presence” charge was unnecessary where the overall charge covered the essential elements, and that probable cause supported the arrest warrant. Accordingly, we affirm. 1. When reviewing a defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, and the defendant no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence. Short v. State .1 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. Jackson v. Virginia .2
So viewed, the evidence shows that police had a warrant to arrest Hulsey and staked out a location to which they believed Hulsey would return. They observed a van arrive at the location, in which Hulsey was a passenger in the front seat. Police approached the van and arrested Hulsey as he exited the van. In the search incident to the arrest, police found on Hulsey’s person a black bag and a green container. The green container contained a plastic bag with powdered methamphetamine, and the black bag contained i a plastic bag with powdered methamphetamine and ii a PVC pipe partially filled with solid chunks of methamphetamine. The police found other items on the van floorboard in front of the passenger seat and on Hulsey, but none of these contained methamphetamine. The total weight of the methamphetamine from the black bag and the green container equaled 70.49 grams.