A recent case out of our Georgia Court of Appeals upholds that in order to obtain a drug conviction, chemical testing by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation’s (GBI) crime lab isn’t necessarily necessary – specifically trafficking and possessing oxycodone.
No need for scientific test when the State has drugs.com
In Hutchins v. State, A24A1781 (Feb. 4, 2025), defendant Hutchins drove onto and around prison property where he was not supposed to be. Upon being stopped by the police, he said he’d taken a wrong turn. Of course he had contraband on him. Hutchins was subsequently arrested for having about two ounces of marijuana in some latex gloves, methamphetamine, about five pounds of tobacco, and some cell phones. And, he also had some little blue pills. The illicit substances were all hidden under the carpeting of the passenger side floorboard. Can’t see how that didn’t work out for him. Agent Phil Davis with the Department of Corrections used drugs.com to identify the blue pills as 30-milligram strength oxycodone.
While she did test the meth, GBI chemist Laura Zimmerman didn’t make a positive chemical test of the blue pills. However, she testified at trial these blue pills were “consistent with what the logo identification of that pharmaceutical prep would be for oxycodone.” Zimmerman agreed on cross examination by Hutchins’ lawyer that there is such a thing as counterfeit oxycodone pills. Hutchins contended without a chemical test, possessing oxycodone wasn’t proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, there was insufficient evidence to find him guilty on this count. The Court of Appeals disagreed and upheld the jury’s verdict and entry of a Hunchins’ drug conviction without a test.
Drug identification doesn’t only depend upon chemistry
In making its ruling, it was important to the Court of Appeals how Hunchins behaved. First, he drove about a mile after being blue lighted before stopping. And, he drove into an area from which previously contraband had been dropped for smuggling into the prison. Maybe he didn’t make a wrong turn? Second, the oxycodone was hidden among the marijuana, meth, tobacco and cell phones. The taint of contraband on otherwise innocent blue pills? Indeed, none of these items, including the tobacco and phones, were authorized to be brought into prison under the circumstances.
Hutchins’ additional claim of ineffective assistance of counsel failed. His lawyer had strategic reasons for not objecting to the blue pill identification. His lawyer did argue the lack of a test to the jury. And his lawyer argued toxicologist Zimmerman’s admitted counterfeit pills exists. Together, these were reasons to find Hutchins not guilty on this count. This strategic decision by Hutchins’ lawyer to maintain credibility with the jury by picking and choosing his battles, smart or otherwise, was not one the Court of Appeals was inclined to second guess. Thus, both the no test drug conviction and ineffective assistance of counsel holdings went against the defendant.