Jones v. State

The defendant did not waive his right to open and close argument by quoting one word from the arresting officer's initial report for impeachment purposes.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

A jury found John Alexander Jones guilty of possessing cocaine, abandoning a controlled substance, and eleven other misdemeanor offenses involving reckless conduct, obstructing an officer, disrupting a public school, and numerous traffic violations. On appeal, Jones challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for possessing cocaine.1 He also argues that the trial court denied him his right to open and close final arguments, admitted improper impeachment evidence, and failed to merge several offenses. For reasons that follow, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for a new trial on the charges for possessing cocaine and abandoning a controlled substance. 1. In reviewing Jones’ challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict and determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found Jones guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.2 Viewed in this manner, the evidence shows that, while on patrol on December 13, 1999, Officer John Smith spotted a car that he believed to be stolen. Smith followed the car until it stopped in front of an apartment complex. He then activated his blue police lights and approached the vehicle on foot. At that point, the driver, whom Smith identified as Jones at trial, drove away, and Smith gave chase. Jones attempted to elude Smith for several blocks before crashing into a fence near a school. Jones then got out of the car and ran toward the school.

Smith continued to chase Jones on foot. As they ran through the school, Smith saw Jones drop several items, including what appeared to be a glass cylinder or tube. After catching Jones, Smith retraced his steps and found the glass tube. A forensic chemist from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation determined that the tube, which the State alleged was a crack pipe, contained “a trace amount” of cocaine.

Jones v. State

The defendant did not waive his right to open and close argument by quoting one word from the arresting officer's initial report for impeachment purposes.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report