## Facts

- Omali Cotton was stopped and arrested for driving without a license.
- Officers searched Cotton incident to arrest and found three identical small plastic “nickel bags” of marijuana and $60 in the same pocket.
- Officers also found another identical small bag of marijuana on the ground near Cotton’s feet.
- The combined weight of marijuana in the four bags was 2.7 grams.
- The arrest occurred at an apartment complex described by officers as well-known for drug activity.
- Officers noted Cotton had no smoking device, was driving a car that did not belong to him, and was in an apartment complex where he did not live.
- Two officers with drug-enforcement experience testified that multiple small bags, readily accessible cash (including denominations consistent with making change), and the setting were consistent with street-level distribution rather than personal use.
- Cotton presented evidence suggesting the cash and packaging were consistent with personal use, but the jury convicted him of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, among other offenses.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Cotton possessed marijuana with intent to distribute, rather than for personal use.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed the conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.
- Applying the sufficiency standard, the court held the jury could infer intent to distribute from the packaging into multiple small bags, the cash found with the drugs, the location, the absence of smoking paraphernalia, and experienced officer testimony.
- The court declined to reweigh evidence or revisit credibility determinations that were for the jury.

## Legal Principles

- On sufficiency review, evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict; the appellate court does not weigh evidence or assess witness credibility.
- Under the Jackson v. Virginia standard, the conviction stands if any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Intent to distribute may be proven by circumstantial evidence, including quantity, packaging, the presence and denominations of cash, contextual circumstances (such as a high-drug area), and testimony from experienced law-enforcement officers.
- A relatively small drug quantity can support an intent-to-distribute finding when combined with distribution-style packaging and other corroborating circumstances.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Cotton’s felony conviction because, despite the small total weight of marijuana, the jury could reasonably infer intent to distribute from four separately packaged bags, accessible cash in distribution-consistent denominations, surrounding circumstances of the arrest, and officer experience-based testimony.


Cotton v. State, 300 Ga. App. 874, 686 S.E.2d 805 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009)