Star Ashley Thomas v. State , 342 Ga. App. 310 ( 2017 )

FIRST DIVISION
BARNES, P. J.,
MCMILLIAN and MERCIER, JJ.
NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be
physically received in our clerk’s office within ten
days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed.
http://www.gaappeals.us/rules
July 10, 2017
In the Court of Appeals of Georgia
A17A0820. THOMAS v. THE STATE.
BARNES, Presiding Judge.
Star Ashley Thomas appeals her convictions for trafficking in
methamphetamine and three misdemeanor drug offenses. She argues that there was
insufficient evidence to support her trafficking conviction, that the trial court erred
by allowing a forensic chemist from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (“GBI”) to
testify about drug identification tests performed by a different chemist, and that her
trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to the introduction
into evidence of both chemists’ crime lab reports. We find no error and affirm.
Viewed in a light favorable to the jury’s verdict,1 the evidence shows that in
January 2014, Thomas’s brother overdosed on heroin at their mother’s Douglasville
home, where Thomas also lived. The first responder at the scene was a police
corporal, who found the man’s mother and two other women attempting to resuscitate
1
See Hubbard v. State, 274 Ga. App. 639, 639 (618 SE2d 690) (2005).
him. Emergency medical services personnel arrived soon after and transported the
man to a hospital, accompanied by the mother and one of the other women, a family
friend who was visiting from out of town. The man later died.
The third woman who had been helping him stayed behind at the house, and
the corporal interviewed her. The third woman told the corporal that she and the man
had used heroin and marijuana earlier, and she gave the corporal a marijuana pipe and
the wrapper in which the heroin had been packaged.
While the corporal was talking to the third woman, Thomas came upstairs from
the basement and the corporal noticed her for the first time. The corporal followed
Thomas back downstairs to a bedroom she identified as hers. After ascertaining her
identity, he brought her upstairs for questioning. Suspecting there were more drugs
in the house, the corporal asked Thomas for permission to search, but she said no. He
told her to wait in the kitchen while the police applied for a search warrant. At that
point, Thomas – whose demeanor had been calm – became “very concerned” and
wanted to leave the house.
The detective assigned to the case obtained a warrant and, with the assistance
of another officer, searched Thomas’s bedroom. Before the search began, Thomas
told the detective that he “might find a little marijuana, but that’s all [she had].” On
2
top of the dresser, however, the police found a “white crystal-like substance” – which
they suspected was methamphetamine – “sprinkled out” on a plate, along with a
rolled up dollar bill.2 Inside a drawer, the police found a plastic tub containing a large
amount of a substance that field-tested positive for methamphetamine. The substance
was later taken to the GBI crime lab and was determined to weigh 37.24 grams and
to contain methamphetamine. Next to the tub was a bottle of “crystal flake,” a
substance commonly used to “cut” methamphetamine. Elsewhere in the room the
police found a digital scale, a number of baggies, a glass methamphetamine pipe, two
grinders used to pulverize marijuana, several marijuana cigarettes, and several pills
of a prescription muscle relaxant, Tizanidine.
Thomas was arrested and charged with trafficking in methamphetamine and
possession of marijuana, Tizanidine, and drug-related objects.3 At trial, Thomas and
her mother testified in Thomas’s defense. Thomas conceded that the marijuana and
marijuana-related materials found in her bedroom were hers. She maintained,
however, that the tub of methamphetamine had been left behind by her former live-in
2
The assisting officer testified that rolled-up bills are commonly used to snort
methamphetamine.
3
Thomas also was charged with possession of another prescription medication
discovered in her room, but the jury found her not guilty of that offense.
3
boyfriend, who had told her it contained “some kind of carpet cleaner . . . used as a
cut.” Thomas stated that her ex-boyfriend also had left behind clothing in the dresser
and closet, and her mother likewise testified that his clothing was present in the
room.4 According to Thomas’s mother, the visiting family friend had been sleeping
in Thomas’s bedroom during the week before her son’s overdose. Thomas insisted
that the suspected methamphetamine found on top of her dresser belonged to the
family friend. The detective who searched Thomas’s room found no men’s clothing
there, and no sign that anyone except Thomas was living in the room.
A jury found Thomas guilty of the charges. She filed a motion for new trial,
which the trial court denied, and this appeal followed.
1. Thomas argues that there was insufficient evidence to support her trafficking
conviction because the State failed to show that she constructively possessed the
methamphetamine found in her dresser.5 She contends that her ex-boyfriend and the
family friend staying in her bedroom had equal access to the methamphetamine and
4
Thomas and her ex-boyfriend had been arrested on drug charges, including
trafficking in methamphetamine, the previous year. The charges against Thomas were
dropped, but her ex-boyfriend apparently was convicted and remained incarcerated
at the time of Thomas’s trial.
5
The suspected methamphetamine found on top of the dresser was neither
weighed nor tested and thus did not form the basis of the trafficking charge.
4
that the evidence of her possession of it “was based merely on spatial proximity.” We
conclude that whether Thomas constructively possessed the methamphetamine was
a question for the jury.
A person who knowingly possesses 28 or more grams of methamphetamine
commits the offense of trafficking in methamphetamine. OCGA § 16-13-31 (e); see
also Navarro v. State, 293 Ga. App. 329, 330-331 (667 SE2d 125) (2008). “If the
State presents evidence that a defendant owned or controlled premises where
contraband was found, it gives rise to a rebuttable presumption that the defendant
possessed the contraband.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Bailey v. State, 294
Ga. App. 437, 439-440 (1) (669 SE2d 453) (2008); see also Swan v. State, 300 Ga.
App. 667, 670 (2) (686 SE2d 310) (2009); Castillo v. State, 288 Ga. App. 828, 830
(655 SE2d 695) (2007). This presumption may be rebutted by evidence that someone
other than the defendant had equal access to the specific place where the contraband
was found, but whether the defendant presented sufficient evidence to establish equal
access is a jury question. Swanger v. State, 251 Ga. App. 182, 185-186 (554 SE2d
207) (2001) (“[h]aving heard evidence in support of [defendant’s] equal access
theory, the jury was authorized to reject it”).
5
Thomas presumptively possessed the methamphetamine at issue here because
it was found in a dresser in her bedroom. See Swan, 300 Ga. App. at 670 (2); Bailey,
294 Ga. App. at 439-440 (1). Additionally, evidence of recent methamphetamine use
was found in open view on top of the dresser, Thomas admitted that other drugs and
drug paraphernalia found in the room were hers, and the police saw no indication that
anyone else was living in the room. Although Thomas claimed that the
methamphetamine in the dresser and the suspected methamphetamine on top of the
dresser belonged to other people, the jury was not required to believe her testimony.
See Swan, 300 Ga. App. at 670-671 (“[w]hether the evidence of equal access is
sufficient to rebut any inference of possession arising from discovery of drugs in the
defendant’s bedroom is a question properly left to the jury” (citation and punctuation
omitted)).
2. Thomas argues that the trial court erred by allowing a GBI forensic chemist
to testify about drug identification tests performed by a different chemist who was not
available at trial. We disagree.
During trial, the State announced that the chemist who had weighed and
performed the drug analysis of the methamphetamine found in Thomas’s dresser
could not come to court due to her husband’s medical emergency and her own serious
6
illness. Over Thomas’s objection, the State presented the testimony of the woman’s
co-worker, another GBI chemist, who was tendered as an expert in forensic chemistry
and drug identification testing. The second chemist stated that while he had neither
performed the drug analysis himself nor witnessed the first chemist doing so, he had
independently evaluated the data on which her results were based and reached his
own conclusion:
Essentially, in our software system, we have at the laboratory, where we
keep all of our technical data and results, whatever, I basically looked
at the data she had produced in our software system. I looked up, you
know, everything she did . . . and all the data that she used to draw a
conclusion on this case. And essentially, with my expertise, I looked at
that data, came to the same conclusion she did, and I produced a report
signifying that.
The second chemist also examined the instruments that the first chemist had
used and found them to be in working order. He testified that the first chemist was a
“very straight arrow” known for her diligence and that “[t]here was nothing in the
data to suspect any kind of mishandling of the evidence or her way of testing it.” He
explained that if the first chemist had improperly performed the tests, “it would show
in the data that she did something wrong or that the data she produced [wasn’t]
consistent.” Ultimately, the second chemist agreed with the first chemist that the
7
substance in the tub was 37.24 grams of solid material containing methamphetamine.
Thomas was able to cross-examine the second chemist, and the court instructed the
jury to consider the fact that she was unable to cross-examine the first chemist when
evaluating the credibility of the second chemist.
Thomas argues that the admission of the second chemist’s testimony violated
her right to confront the witnesses against her under the Confrontation Clause.6 She
cites Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U. S. 647 (131 SCt 2705, 180 LE2d 610)
(2011), in which the State of New Mexico introduced a forensic lab report certifying
that a DUI defendant’s blood-alcohol concentration was above the legal limit. The
scientist who generated and signed the report had since been “placed on unpaid leave
for an undisclosed reason,” and the prosecution did not call him as a witness. Id. at
659 (II). Instead, the prosecution called a different scientist who “had neither
observed nor reviewed [the original scientist’s] analysis,” nor reached an independent
conclusion about it. Id. at 655 (I) (B). The United States Supreme Court ruled that the
“surrogate testimony” of the second scientist was insufficient to satisfy the
Confrontation Clause, particularly when the state had not asserted that the original
6
See U. S. Const. amend. VI (“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall
enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him.”).
8
scientist was unavailable, the defendant did not know why he had been placed on
leave, and his presence at trial would have permitted the defendant to ask “questions
designed to reveal whether incompetence, evasiveness, or dishonesty accounted for
[the first scientist’s] removal from his work station.” Id. at 661 (II) (B).
Georgia courts “have consistently held that the Confrontation Clause does not
require the analyst who actually completed the forensic testing used against a
defendant to testify at trial.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Leger v. State, 291
Ga. 584, 592 (5) (732 SE2d 53) (2012). In Disharoon v. State, 291 Ga. 45 (727 SE2d
465) (2012), the Georgia Supreme Court recognized Bullcoming’s condemnation of
“surrogate testimony,” but ruled that Bullcoming does not require the exclusion of a
substitute witness who “is a supervisor, reviewer, or someone else with a personal,
albeit limited, connection to the scientific test at issue.” (Punctuation and citation
omitted.) Id. at 48; see also Leger, 291 Ga. at 592 (5) (scientist who did not
personally perform DNA tests, but supervised worker who did, interpreted worker’s
results, and wrote lab report could testify at trial); Estrada v. State, 319 Ga. App. 762,
765-766 (3) (738 SE2d 344) (2013) (analyst who performed lab testing was
unavailable, but supervisor could testify because he had reviewed analyst’s work to
determine whether it had been performed correctly and whether he agreed with it).
9
In this case, there was evidence that the first chemist was known to be careful
in her work, but was unavailable at trial due to circumstances unrelated to her job
performance. The second chemist explained the procedures the first chemist had
followed, inspected the testing instruments she had used, analyzed the data she had
electronically stored, determined that the data appeared to be reliable, reached an
independent conclusion concerning the nature of the tested substance, and generated
his own report. Given the second chemist’s “personal, albeit limited, connection to
the scientific test at issue,” Disharoon, 291 Ga. at 48, his testimony was not the sort
of “surrogate testimony” forbidden by Bullcoming. Thomas’s Confrontation Clause
rights were not violated.7
3. Thomas argues that she received ineffective assistance of counsel because
her trial lawyer failed to object, during the second chemist’s testimony, to the
admission into evidence of both his report and the report of the first chemist
concerning the weight and nature of the substance found in her dresser drawer.
Although counsel objected repeatedly to the testimony of the second chemist, he did
7
Thomas also asserts that the second chemist’s testimony was inadmissible
hearsay. But the second chemist, who “made the determination that the substance was
contraband based on [his] interpretation of the data[,] did testify at trial and was thus
subject to cross-examination.” Carolina v. State, 302 Ga. App. 40, 42 (690 SE2d 435)
(2010). Therefore, there was no hearsay problem. See id.10
not specifically challenge the admissibility of the lab reports. We, however, find no
ineffective assistance.
The second chemist’s lab report was admissible because the person who
generated the report – the second chemist – testified at trial and was available for
cross-examination. See Wise v. State, 300 Ga. 593, 598 (4) (797 SE2d 447) (2017);
compare Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U. S. 305 (129 SCt 2527, 174 LE2d
314) (2009) (crime lab reports are testimonial and therefore inadmissible unless the
analysts themselves testify at trial). Any objection to the admission of the report
would have been meritless, and the failure to make a meritless objection is not
ineffective assistance of counsel. See Tran v. State, 340 Ga. App. 546, 554 (2) (c)
(798 SE2d 71) (2017).
Assuming without deciding that the first chemist’s lab report was not
admissible, counsel’s failure to object to its admission did not prejudice Thomas. As
noted in Division 2, the second chemist properly testified about the first chemist’s
testing and conclusions, and the second chemist’s independent report – which reached
the same conclusions as the first chemist’s report – was properly admitted into
evidence. Because the first chemist’s report was merely cumulative of other,
admissible evidence, Thomas cannot establish the prejudice necessary for an
11
ineffective assistance claim. See Wilson v. State, 297 Ga. 86, 88 (2) (772 SE2d 689)
(2015) (“The failure of trial counsel to object to such cumulative evidence does not
support a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel.”)
Judgment affirmed. McMillian and Mercier, J.J., concur.
12