Ingram v. State

Tommy Ingram was found guilty on two counts of the sale of crack cocaine. His amended motion for new trial was denied, and he appeals, asserting five enumerations of error. Finding no error, we affirm. 1. In two enumerations of error, Ingram asserts the general grounds. Construed to support the jury’s verdict, the evidence shows that on two occasions Ingram sold crack cocaine to a confidential informant, who testified at trial that Ingram was the individual who sold her the cocaine. The confidential informant was checked by a police officer before and after the sale. The sales were recorded on a videotape, which was played for the jury. A forensic chemist testified and identified the substance sold to the informant as cocaine. This evidence is ample to sustain the jury’s verdict under Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U. S. 307 99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560 1979.

Ingram also contends that no evidence was presented with regard to the calibration of the testing equipment, the date of testing, or the chain of custody for the samples, and that the forensic chemist did not testify as to the tests performed on the substance seized. But these contentions are wholly inaccurate. The forensic chemist testified to the analysis she performed. In addition, both the arresting officer and the forensic chemist testified to the chain of custody, and the forensic chemist testified that the testing equipment was calibrated every morning and removed from service if any problem was found. Moreover, an attack on the reliability of drug test results is for the jury. Poston v. State , 274 Ga. App. 117, 118 1 617 SE2d 150 2005. This enumeration of error is without merit.