Steven Marcus Denson v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: A19A2307

Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; January 27, 2020; Georgia; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Miller, P.J., and Judges Rickman and Reese address the appeal of Steven Marcus Denson, convicted of trafficking in methamphetamine in 2007. Denson argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, claiming he was merely present at the scene. The Court agrees and reverses the conviction, noting that the State did not present evidence indicating Denson was more than a bystander. The trial court inexplicably delayed ruling on Denson's timely motion for a new trial for nine years. Although Denson has completed his sentence, the Court exercises discretion to hear the appeal, referencing precedent that allows for such considerations post-sentencing. The evidence presented at trial included a police officer encountering a suspicious situation with Denson in a bathroom of a house containing methamphetamine manufacturing components, but no active cooking was observed. Denson was convicted of trafficking but acquitted of other related charges, ultimately receiving a ten-year sentence. The Court emphasizes that it evaluates evidence favorably to the verdict and does not assess witness credibility, leaving conflicts for the jury.

Competent evidence supporting each fact necessary for the State’s case is required to uphold a jury's verdict, even if contradicted. For a circumstantial evidence conviction, the established facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt while excluding all reasonable alternatives. A party to a crime, defined under OCGA 16-2-21, can be indicted and convicted if it is proven that they knowingly aided or abetted the crime. Mere presence at the crime scene is insufficient for conviction; however, presence, companionship, and conduct before and after the offense can imply participation in criminal intent. If a defendant knew of and shared the intent of the principal actor, their conduct can infer assent to the crime.

In the case of Denson, the evidence was deemed insufficient to support his conviction for trafficking methamphetamine. While the presence of drug paraphernalia and a strong smell indicated potential illegal activity, it did not prove that Denson shared the intent to traffic methamphetamine. There was no evidence showing he benefited from or participated in the manufacturing or distribution of methamphetamine. Additionally, the methamphetamine lab was not operational at the time of the search, and there was no indication of Denson's regular presence at the location during manufacturing activities. Consequently, his mere presence at the house was insufficient for a conviction.

The court distinguishes the case of Denson from previous cases cited by the State, specifically Franks and Hughes. In Hughes, the defendant was linked to a methamphetamine lab found in a property he owned, while in Denson’s case, there was no evidence of ownership or possession of illegal substances. Additionally, the methamphetamine lab was non-functional during the search, and there was no indication that Denson frequented the residence where the lab was located. In Franks, the defendant exhibited suspicious behavior and had physical injuries consistent with methamphetamine production, none of which applied to Denson. Consequently, the court found the evidence insufficient to uphold Denson's conviction for trafficking methamphetamine, leading to its reversal. The court also expressed concern over the nearly thirteen-year delay in resolving the appeal, highlighting the principle that "Justice delayed is justice denied." Since Denson has completed his sentence, he has options to petition for the restriction or correction of his criminal records, as outlined in Doe v. State. The judgment was reversed with concurrence from Judges Rickman and Reese.