Charles Martin Wesson was convicted, following a jury trial, of trafficking,1 manufacturing,2 and possession of methamphetamine.3 He appeals his conviction and the denial of his motion for new trial, arguing that the trial court erred in 1 denying his motion for a directed verdict of acquittal on the trafficking charge based on insufficiency of the evidence; 2 improperly charging the jury on trafficking; 3 denying his motion to suppress illegally obtained evidence; 4 improperly allowing the State to introduce evidence of other crimes; and 5 failing to merge the trafficking and manufacturing sentences. For the reasons set forth below, we vacate Wesson’s sentence on the offense of manufacturing methamphetamine but otherwise affirm the trial court’s judgment. 1. We first address Wesson’s contention that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict of acquittal based on insufficiency of the evidence. The standard of review for the denial of a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal is the same as for determining the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction. Hash v. State .4 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 .5 We do not weight 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 .6
So construed, the evidence showed that on May 27, 2003, several officers from the Chattooga County Sheriff’s Department went to Wesson’s residence in an attempt to locate Wesson’s son, who had been arrested the night before on drug charges but had escaped from police custody. Upon arriving at Wesson’s residence, which consisted of two trailers somewhat attached by a porch, Officers Schrader and Womack were met by Wesson just outside his front door. Officer Schrader asked for permission to search the premises for Wesson’s son, and Wesson consented. During his walk through the premises, Officer Schrader noticed in plain view a bucket with two bottles of Heet brand antifreeze, an item which he associated with the clandestine manufacture of methamphetamine. At the same time, one of the officers, who had not approached the trailer but had remained in the yard, noticed in plain view several discarded items that he associated with the manufacture of methamphetamine, including empty ephedrine packets, some tubing, and Coleman fuel cans. Based on this evidence, the officers asked Wesson for permission to conduct a more thorough search of the premises, but Wesson refused. Consequently, Officers Schrader and Womack left to obtain a search warrant while the other officers remained to secure the premises.
