Candi Doyal appeals from her convictions for possession of methamphetamine and possession of drug related objects. She contends, in part, that insufficient evidence supports her convictions and that the trial court erred by admitting hearsay evidence over her objections and by denying her motion for mistrial. Although we find that sufficient evidence supports Doyal’s convictions, we reverse because she was entitled to a mistrial after the State introduced hearsay evidence that she had been selling methamphetamine. 1. On appeal from her criminal convictions, Doyal no longer enjoys a presumption of innocence, and we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict. See Gallimore v. State , 264 Ga. App. 629 591 SE2d 485 2003. We do not weigh the evidence or resolve issues of witness credibility. Id. We “only determine if the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find the defendant guilty of the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id.
So viewed, the record shows that two police officers went to Doyal’s place of employment, a gas station and convenience store. One of the officer’s testified, over objection, that when he went to the convenience store he told Doyal, “the reason we’re here is because I’ve got allegations against you for selling methamphetamine,”1 and then asked her whether she was “selling drugs out of the store.” According to the police officer, Doyal replied that she was not selling drugs and that she was only an occasional user. When the officer asked her if she had any drugs, Doyal told him that she had a pipe in her purse and then, according to the officer, voluntarily pulled a glass pipe from her purse. The State introduced evidence showing that the glass pipe contained methamphetamine residue.
