Cotton v. State
300 Ga. App. 874, 686 S.E.2d 805, 2009 Fulton County D. Rep. 3772 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Circumstantial evidence, including the individual packaging of narcotics, the presence of corresponding cash denominations, the absence of user paraphernalia, and expert testimony from law enforcement, is sufficient to support a conviction for possession with intent to distribute, even when the total quantity of the drug is small.
Facts:
- Police arrested Omali Cotton for driving with a suspended license in the Ridgecrest Apartments complex, an area known for drug activity.
- A search incident to the arrest revealed three small, identical plastic bags of marijuana and $60 in cash (two $5 bills, one $10 bill, and two $20 bills) in the same pocket of Cotton's pants.
- Police discovered another identical small bag of marijuana on the ground near Cotton's feet.
- The total combined weight of the marijuana in all four bags was 2.7 grams.
- Cotton did not have any smoking devices, such as a pipe or rolling papers, in his possession.
- Cotton's girlfriend testified that he was unemployed, smoked marijuana daily, and that it was not uncommon for him to possess several small bags for his personal use.
Procedural Posture:
- A jury in a state trial court convicted Omali Cotton for possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute, along with several other misdemeanor offenses.
- Cotton, as the appellant, appealed his felony conviction for possession with intent to distribute to the Court of Appeals of Georgia.
- On appeal, Cotton argued that the evidence presented at trial was legally insufficient to support the jury's verdict on the intent to distribute charge.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is evidence consisting of four individually packaged bags of marijuana totaling 2.7 grams, $60 in specific denominations, the absence of smoking paraphernalia, and expert police testimony sufficient to support a conviction for possession with intent to distribute?
Opinions:
Majority - Smith, P.J.
Yes. The evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for possession with intent to distribute. The court reasoned that while mere possession is not enough, the totality of the circumstances in this case supported an inference of intent to sell. The court emphasized that there is no 'bright line rule' regarding the amount of evidence needed. Key factors included the packaging of the marijuana into four separate, saleable units ('nickel bags'); the presence of $60 in denominations ($5s, $10s, $20s) consistent with making change for drug sales; the absence of any smoking paraphernalia, which suggests the possessor is not a user; and the location of the arrest in a high-drug area. The court gave significant weight to the expert testimony of the arresting officers, who, based on their experience, interpreted these facts as being consistent with the practices of a street-level dealer.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that intent to distribute can be proven entirely through circumstantial evidence, diminishing the importance of the quantity of drugs seized. It grants substantial weight to the expert opinions of police officers, allowing their experience-based testimony to be a key factor in elevating a simple possession charge to a more serious felony conviction. The case provides a clear framework for prosecutors to build intent-to-distribute cases from a collection of seemingly minor details, such as packaging and cash denominations. Consequently, this lowers the evidentiary threshold for securing such convictions, particularly in cases involving small-time, street-level dealing.
