MCFADDEN, P. J., MCMILLIAN and GOSS, JJ.
Justin Alan Smith and Jason Dale Reno were each convicted by
a jury of trafficking methamphetamine following a traffic
stop of a car owned by Smith but driven by
Reno. In Case No. A19A0089, Smith appeals the
denial of his motion for new trial, asserting that the
evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and the
trial court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict.
In Case No. A19A0092, the State appeals the trial court's
ruling reversing the jury's verdict on the trafficking
charge on the ground that the evidence against him was
insufficient as a matter of law to support his conviction.
Because we find that the evidence was sufficient to support
the convictions of each of the defendants on the trafficking
charge, we affirm in Case No. A18A0089 and reverse in Case
evidence at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the
verdict,  showed that on June 20, 2015, a deputy
with the Franklin County Sheriff's Office conducted a
traffic stop of a vehicle driven by Reno on Interstate 85
("I-85"). Reno told the deputy that he did not have
a driver's license, and a record search reflected that
Reno's license had been suspended. Smith told the deputy
that the car belonged to him, and a check of the vehicle tag
reflected that the car belonged to his mother.During the traffic
stop, the deputy detected the odor of marijuana and observed
that Reno appeared unusually nervous. Reno admitted that he
had marijuana in his pocket, and he handed it to the deputy.
When the deputy asked if there was anything illegal in the
vehicle, Reno said that he had a "blunt" in a
compartment in the passenger-side door.
a search of the vehicle, the deputy discovered the marijuana
"blunt" in the passenger door and a shoe box in the
trunk of the car containing a pistol, ammunition, and a bag
with a substance that later field tested positive for
methamphetamine. Smith said that the box and the gun belonged
to him but denied that the bag was his. Subsequent analysis
determined that the bag contained 55.68 grams of
testified at trial and denied that he had put the
methamphetamine in the car or that he sold methamphetamine.
He stated that the drugs belonged to a former roommate, who
had two prior methamphetamine-related convictions. Smith said
that the day before the traffic stop, he had allowed the
roommate to use his car for a short period, but the roommate
had returned the car much later than agreed upon. When the
roommate finally did return with the car, Smith immediately
drove away without allowing the roommate the opportunity to
remove anything from the vehicle.
Smith and Reno were convicted, each filed motions for new
trial. Smith's motion was denied, while Reno's motion
was granted. These appeals followed.
argues on appeal that the trial court erred in denying his
motions for directed verdict and for new trial because the
State's evidence was insufficient to support his
conviction for trafficking in methamphetamine.
Supreme Court has held that:
[t]he 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. When
reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, the proper
standard for review is whether a rational trier of fact could
have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
This Court does not reweigh evidence or resolve conflicts in
testimony; instead, evidence is reviewed in a light most
favorable to the verdict, with deference to the jury's
assessment of the weight and credibility of the evidence.
(Citations and punctuation omitted). Smith v. State,
304 Ga. 752, 754 (822 S.E.2d 220) (2018). On appeal, Smith no
longer enjoys the presumption of innocence, and we must
affirm the verdict if there is any evidence to support it.
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (99 S.Ct. 2781, 61
L.Ed.2d 560) (1979).
crime of trafficking in methamphetamine is defined under OCGA
§ 16-13-31 (e), as follows:
Except as authorized by this article, any person who sells,
delivers, or brings into this state or has possession of 28
grams or more of methamphetamine, amphetamine, or any mixture
containing either methamphetamine or amphetamine, as
described in Schedule II, in violation of this article